HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:03:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems

In <1992Oct6.201239.4480@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:

>sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
>>In article <1b_p5lc.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>> Because saying that embryologists say that a human life begins at conception
>>> isn't particularly useful.  It is saying that a human life is that which
>>> begins at conception because a human life begins at conception.  If you're
>>> just going to _define_ a human life to begin at conception, then you might
>>> _define_ with just as much validity a human life to begin at birth.
>>
>>	Conception is the first time that a human individual is
>>created, an individual who will, if not killed, eventually grow

Are you sure you dont mean 'begun'? I have difficulty in believing
that at the moment the sperm penetrates the egg, a 7-10 pound
fetus pops up. Arguably, a full-term fetus is 'created' over
a normal nine month gestation.

>>into an adult human.  At no time prior to conception is this the
>>case, and at no time after.  BTW, if you have a documented
>>statement from a reputable embryologist who says that a human
>>individual is created at any time OTHER than at conception, I'd
>>like to see your source.  In all my time on this net so far, I
>>haven't seen any such thing.

>Still a circular definition.  If an "individual" is defined to be what
>is created at conception, then of course anything after conception is
>going to be an individual.  Unless you have some other definition of
>"individual?"  One that does not rely on the notion of conception?

>Also, a fertilized egg _may_ develop into an adult, NOT _will_.  There
>are many pitfalls along the way to adulthood, and one of the first of 
>those is the common failure to implant of many zygotes/embryos.

 And various other drug or virus realted threats.


>-- 
>Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
>ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott

REB.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: mister rogers <rogers@ial3.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
X-Xxdate: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:12:56 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:20:04 GMT

In article <1687F9CC8.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> Jim McMaster,
MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com writes:
>>In article <1687E86A2.MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com> 
>MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct12.024125.7749@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
>>>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
[simon makes goofy joke about as good an overstretched pun]
>>>
[jim's feelings are hurt and loses respect for simon]
>>
[simon complains about flaming jokes with smilies]
>
[jim explains it wasn't a flame but a reprimand for illogical debating.
on the net, yeah right]


SIMON.
JIM.
BOTH OF YOU GO STAND IN THE CORNER. NOW!
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:47:56 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <Petch-151092084435@oboe.gvg.tek.com>, Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:

|> If you will remember back to the primaries, Rush was urging people to vote
|> for Buchanan in order to send George Bush a wake-up call.

	I remember back in the primaries, when Rush was taking heat all
over he place for not supporting Pat Buchannan. Rush has been a Bush fan
since the beginning.

|> 	. If he had listened to Rush four years ago, the economy wouldn't
|> be in the toilet and he would be riding a landslide to reelection. In
|> short, there is no correlation between Rush's rise and Bush's fall. Bush
|> did it all by himself despite Rush's excellent advice and constant warnings
|> over the airwaves.

	I don't think that the economy is the only issue. The convention made
a large segment of the public cough hairballs, and the economy makes them
less willing to forgive that.
	
	The hard line on abortion cost Bush votes.
	The hard line on gays cost bush votes.
	The hard line on anything-not-republican cost bush votes.

If the economy was going great, then people would be willing to overlook
that stuff, but with the economy in a slump, even republicans are bailing
like rats from a sinking ship.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What is a conservative
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:48:47 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct6.014757.17732@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.192717.9529@ncsu.edu> mhmulli@eos.ncsu.edu (MARTIN HARPER MULLIS) writes:
>>
>>  Believe it or not I get tired of seeing Rush, Bush,
>> and Buchanon all being called conservatives.
>> Bush as we all know is not a conservative by any stretch of means
>> and generally gives us a bad name.
>
>	[details deleted]
>
>>  Please try not to lump these men into one category.
>
>	Sorry, but this is Rushs group, and while that doesn't mean that we
>like what Rush says, it does mean that we play by Rush's rules. 
>
>	Rush says:
>	Bill Clinton is a liberal, Like Jane Fonda.
>
>	We get to say:
>	George Bush is conservative, like Rush Limbaugh.
>
>	Rush says:
>	Jesse Jackson is definitive of the Democratic party
>
>	We get to say:
>	Pat Robertson is definitive of the GOP.
>
>	et al.

Alex, try again.  Where in the charter does it say that we play by 
Rush's rules?  I say we play by the media's rules. 

       The Media says:
       Jesse Jackson is definitive of the Democratic party

       The Media says:
       Pat Robertson is NOT definitive of the GOP

These two statements are true, evidenced by the fact that Jessie has 
his own show on CNN, Pat has to buy his own network to get a show, 
among other reasons.

Ted

-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7141 alt.politics.bush:8689 alt.politics.clinton:9805 alt.politics.elections:16175 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6671 talk.politics.misc:51010
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Thank you for answering my question! Maybe
Date: 12 Oct 92 06:20:32 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
> 
> In article <BvIr9I.E61@eis.calstate.edu>, 
> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) said:
> 
> > Finally, those stealth-liberal idiots on Bush's staff, Darman and
> > Brady, persuaded Bush to accept a tax hike in return for guaranteed
> > cuts in Federal spending.
> 
> Ah, but who gets the credit for those two idiots being on Bush's staff
> in the first place?  Bush may be able to legitimately lay off some of
> the blame for the nation's problems on the Congress, but he's got no
> one to blame but himself for the composition of his own staff.
> 
> -- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
> 

No dispute whatsoever. In fact, Darman is hinting that he'd be the new
Treasury secretary in a second Bush term, as if we needed any other
reasons not to vote for Bush! And Bush himself doesn't see that Darman and
Brady are responsible for much of the trouble he's in. 

I'll probably vote for Bush anyway, because he won't (I HOPE) be QUITE as
bad for the Nation as Clinton would be. but, "the lesser of two evils is
STILL evil."

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:01:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.170602.18268@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.024125.7749@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>Well, since net users are generally better educated and more
>>>intelligent, it only seems like the liberals have taken over.
>>>
>
>I disagree.  I feel that intelligent liberals come from middle-class and
>upper-class people who do not have to worry about their jobs or business.
>Most people on the net are from universities (.edu, at least in the US)
>and people at universities do not have to worry about their businesses
>going under, and are either students, faculty with tenure or staff who
>are vested.  Therefore, those people are not concerned, on a day to day
>basis with businesses and jobs, so they are more likely to be liberal.
>
>Ted
>
I didn't write the article you were quoting from. In fact, I oppose the "
liberalization of the net.  Most of the users here would probably want me
off the net, since my views are offensive to all.

Simon
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6905 alt.activism.d:3664 alt.politics.elections:15710 alt.politics.bush:8254 alt.politics.clinton:9158 talk.politics.misc:50394 talk.abortion:41454
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
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: 8 Oct 1992 17:50:20 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Oct8.211540.23545@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> 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!


And if my mother, when she was pregnant with me, decided that pregnancy
and childraising was too much of a burden, and was FORCED to have me,
I'd have a lifetime of apologizing to do.

Do you like the notion of your mother being FORCED into servitude for you,
William?  I really don't.  I happen to love my mother.  I happen to respect
my mother.  I happen to admire my mother.

Specifically, I happen to admire her ability to analyze her situation and
make decisions for herself.  She doesn't need the government to do it for 
her.

If my mother had to be turned into a slave in order to insure my existance,
I wouldn't want my existance.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:34:50 GMT

note followup

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

When I first saw this guy's post I thought "gad, another freshpoop on
the net.  Sheeeit"  And sure enough ...

% finger William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu

   Name:  William A. Hall Jr. (Bill)
   Class or Dept: '96                      Campus Mail: HB 1793
   Email goes to: BlitzMail (Macintosh)
   Phone: 640-5076

>In article <1b2l0cINN2bh@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>> And if my mother, when she was pregnant with me, decided that pregnancy
>> and childraising was too much of a burden, and was FORCED to have me,
>> I'd have a lifetime of apologizing to do.
>
>This is why all of you liberals are so whacked-out. Allow me to give
>y'all a lesson in Biology 101. When a baby is conceived, his/her
>genetic blueprint is formed. He (or she) is unique, and so are his/her
>characteristics -- big feet, blue eyes, brown hair, pug nose, et
>cetera. Before conception, that doesn't exist. Millions of sperm with

Clearly you yourself haven't made it to your biology class yet or you
would have known this is incorrect.  The genetic makeup is selected in
roughly three stages.  First, a subset of the mother's genes are
selected for the egg.  Then a subset of the father's genes are
selected for the sperm.  Then, at the beginning of conception, one of
the available gene subsets from the father (the spermatozoa) merges
with mother's gene subset.

However, all this is not very important as environment plays a very
large part in the development of any individual.  To suggest that a
person is determined by their genes is exceedingly naive at best, and
is also very wrong.

When you grow up into a real person with a brain, you can try
_thinking_ about the issue for yourself and stop mindlessly 
accepting the conservative party propaganda.

>millions of blueprints and millions of ovums with millions of

And it's tens of thousands of ova and billions of spermatozoa, 
not millions (as anyone who's taken Biology 101 should know).

>Geez. I don't know how people can't understand simple logic.

Good question.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jeffgus@netcom.com (Jeffrey Gustafson)
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:47:22 GMT

msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon) writes:

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

>MOST PEOPLE keep saying "Yes." Every day. Haven't you been listening to
>the public opinion.  Polls, the man on the street, the voter's registration
>numbers.  

>Most people are saying "No more Bush" "No more trickle down economics"
>"No more Republican lies."  You just aren't listening.

	That tax hike tried to put an end to trickle down.  And who's
idea was it?  Not Bush's.  
	If you want to see true trickle down look at the 80's... the
lowest Misery Index in many years!  Bush is not far behind... HALF of
what Jimmy Carter's was!  

---
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6866 alt.activism.d:3645 alt.politics.elections:15637 alt.politics.bush:8189 alt.politics.clinton:9084 talk.politics.misc:50303 talk.abortion:41367
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
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: 8 Oct 1992 20:11:24 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Ted Krueger) writes:
|> 
|> This is patently false.  87% of americans have comprehensive health 
|> care plans.  In addition, there are infertile couples waiting in line 
|> to pay for the expenses of pregnant women who will then let those 
|> infertile couples adopt her baby.
|> 
A.  87% includes coverage under medicare and welfare which are not,
    by any stretch of the imagination, comprehensive health care plans.

B.  I don't really feel that solving the problems of infertile couples with
    money is my problem.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Phil Gramm's analysis of Clinton's plan
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:25:37 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <1992Oct15.063829.11315@netcom.com>, jeffgus@netcom.com (Jeffrey Gustafson) writes:

|> >Does anyone out there have a copy of Phil Gramm's analysis of Clinton's
|> >economic plan?  If so, could you please post it and/or mail me a copy?
|> >Thanks!
|> 
|> 	Me too!  If someone has it please e-mail it to me.
|> 	Thanks!
|> 			jeffgus@netcom.com

	I haven't seen it, but I'll bet it's negative.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: chambles@whale.st.usm.edu (John William Chambless)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: University of Southern Mississippi
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:28:20 GMT

>> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>>
>
>How much information do you VOLUNTARILY give to the government to determine
>what you are willing to pay?  Do you VOLUNTARILY give the government your
>social security number as your tax payer ID?  Did you know that it is
>against the Social Security Act to use the SSN for identification purposes?
>You are NOT compelled to declare a single decuction.
>
>On the other hand, your idiotic comment is off just a little.  Why not
>rephrase it:  Let's all watch the Feds arrest EVERYONE if nobody
>volunteers and pays the tax.  That shows how VOLUNTARY the tax really
>is, because the govt. can't and won't arrest everyone.
>
What a crock! By your definition, EVERYTHING is voluntary.
Obviously, a widespread tax revolt such as you fantasize about won't
happen. In the real world, Federal Income Tax _IS_ , in effect, compulsory.

compulsory.

-- 
* Billy Chambless   University of Southern Mississippi, USA
* Opinions expressed are no sillier than yours...
* "As you become a more powerful and subtle programmer,
* your mistakes will become more powerful and subtle" 
* -from the Waite Group's New C Primer Plus
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: Rush Insensitive to human suffering
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:42:32 GMT



In article <1992Oct15.231139.15303@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com
(Jared Dahl) writes:
>
>Rush Limbaugh:  You are an insensitive, hate-monger.
>
>Making fun of the homeless.  What a man!!
>Making fun of native americans.  What a humorist!!
>Making fun of people with AIDS.  What a celebrity!!
>
>If you're not part of the solution, you're part of
>the problem.
>


No, you're part of the precipitate!  :)
-- 
           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
             Win Twins!
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: STOCKDALE ?!?!
Date: 14 Oct 92 07:35:44 CDT
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

In article <1bgqgsINN1ec@clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, ecpzp@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr V A Noronha) writes:
> 
> Get this guy Stockdale!
> 
> He's inarticlate, confused, purely bewildered.
> 
> Did he turn on his hearing aid at all?
> 
> And to think he might be one heart beat from the Presidency.
> 
> Or this Ross Perot's secret weapon to make sure he doesn't do well enough to help Bush by ousting Clinton?

Is *everything* image, personality, acting, memorizing lines?  I for
one found Stockdale bloody refreshing.  I found myself paying more
attention to what he did say because I already knew what the others
would say.  And really: if I had to choose right now whether I'd
like to have Stockdale or Quayle a heartbeat from the presidency, I
really think I'd feel better about being an American if it were
Stockdale.  Conservatism has good minds, but they're tucked away in
universities and on C-Span lectures and panels: they *just don't run
for office* and that's the whole problem with Conservatism.
-- 
-Ken <miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> {Sometimes you have to look reality straight
 OPINIONS ARE MY OWN            {in the eye, and deny it. - G. Keillor
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Keywords: Rush Liberal Media Anita Hill Clarence Thomas
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:10:31 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Oct13.012651.3652@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
> Secondly, there was no evidence to support Hill, just her claim.  When two
> people have such radically different viewpoints of an event without 
> corroborating evidence then we must rely on their past behavior.  Anita
> Hill's past behavior does not jibe with her claims, she maintained a 
> friendly relationship with the alleged sexual harrasser.

Hmm... can we look at things like say a lie detector test? or maybe two
of them? Oh -yeah - I forgot, once she passed the two lie detector
tests she became a nut who was convinced of her story (thus the
reason she passed the examinations) but as sadly delusional... 
Strange how she was delusional years earlier when she told friends it was
going on....
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Simon Admits he's a Nazi
Date: 15 Oct 92 04:10:10 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> 
> Yes, but most "pro-choice" are inconsistent about the government's role in
> abortion.  THEY MUST GET OUT OF THE WOMB...until it's time to fund the clinic!
> That is hypocrisy.  What a woman does with her body SHOULD be her business.
> But dammit, when *my* tax dollars are used, then it IS my business.  Leave my
> wallet alone and I'll gladly leave the choice *entirely* to the woman.  That
> sounds fair to me.
> 
> >Pro-life believes that this choice should only be up to the government.
> 
> True.  Technically, many anti-Roe people are NOT fundamentalists, they're just
> Constitutionalists.  They believe in the Tenth Amendment and that the
> Constitution leaves issues like abortion to the states.  Many people I know
> who support abortion rights *still* think that Roe is bad law because it
> violates the Constitution.  Me?  I'm anti-abortion and pro-choice.  As I said,
> if you want abortion to *really* be none of my business (as it should be), then
> don't make me pay for something that most religions forbid.  Making the
> religious pay taxes to fund abortion is a crystal-clear infringement (IMHO) of
> their First Amendment-guaranteed religious freedom.


Many religions permit abortion in certain varying cases. However, this
does not afect the absolute accuracy of your argument.

 > 
> Personally, I want as little power given to the government as possible.  Of
> course, there are Constitutional requirements, but it should end right there.

Tim, you have expressed my own views perfectly. Keep up the good work.

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Comparing Rush and Bob Grant.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:25:22 GMT


>    I guess maybe Bob is more amusing when he has better control over the 
>format, but I just can't imagine listening to him on an extended basis for 
>enjoyment.

>>Does any else out there prefer Bob over Rush or am I all alone in this?

When I go home to New York, I'll listen to Bob Grant more than Rush Limbaugh.
Grant is simply a better host, interviewing people, letting others get their
points across before he cans them, and not blathering on about how smart he
is as much. I think Bob is a bit jealous of Rush's success, as I believe that
Rush borrowed a few things from Bob Grant - the nicknames he has
for Cuomo and Florio et al. 
Not to imply that Rush is bad, of course!