HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Turning it Back Aroound
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:27:01 GMT

gadson@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
] In article <1993Jan22.4673.12392@dosgate>, "david meadows" <david.meadows@canrem.com> writes...
] | 
] |        It is logical to assume that the child does have a right to 
] |some of his or her dad's estate. If so, that child must have a legal 
] |personality in the womb, no?
] 
] 	No.  The child/foetus need not necessarily have any legal
] rights while in the womb.  Rights might be granted only after birth
] as a result of the paternal link.... which does not imply personhood
] while in the womb.


Why was it that the IRS ruled that a couple, that
tried to claim their as yet unborn child as a
born child for tax purposes, had brought
a frivilous suit?

Is this suggesting that the IRS is a ProChoice Organization?

Does this Suggest that the IRS was in Direct Opposition
to the Reagan/Bush ProLife Position????

That Reagan and Bush were Never able to get the
full agenda across? That they new that allowing
tax exemptions on UnBorn Persons Might be construed
as a drain on the Federal Budget?????

ciao
drieux


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13559 talk.abortion:57459
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:47:06 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu
Keywords: abortion

In article <1jh6kvINNgot@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1218@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>
>>|But why do you figure something about the fetus himself has to change?
>>|We are talking about a point at which human society is going to recognise
>>|the little bugger as one of it's own, and award it acknowledgement of it's
>>|human rights.
>>Precisely.  We are talking about the personhood of the fetus. 
>
>We are talking about social recognition of personhood.  For which, birth
>has served for centuries.

I'd say we're talking about quite a bit more than social recognition,
and I think you realize this as well, Adrienne, from your posts that I
have read.  Otherwise, we could refer to society's sanction of slavery
in the early 19th century, for instance, as a yardstick for our arguments.

It's true that birth has been considered the beginning of life for a
long time, but that is not sufficient reason to base a ruling on anymore.
Modern science at the very least complicates the matter, if it does not
refute it entirely.

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Inauguration $$$$$
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:27:09 GMT

sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:


>I just saw on CNN that this inauguration could cost over 30 million dollars, 
>making it the most expensive ever.

>Was it not just two weeks ago that it was stated on the news that THIS 
>inauguration would be different?  Not so expensive?  There was NO WAY that they
>would spend as much as Bush? (28 million)

>I have absolutely no problem with spending money on the party, but to 
>explicitly say that they were going to be thrifty, unlike Bush, and then spend
>MORE is quite amusing!

>Oh well, who counts money anyway?
>-- 
    Actually, the companies that are shelling out the money for this affair 
are counting, and they will expect to be taken care of for their financial
contributions.  This type of government - business interaction must stop
for the health of our political system.  And, no, I don't expect taxpayers
to pick up the expenses.  I expect inaugurations to be MUCH smaller.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg)
Subject: Radio Stations
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:01:47 GMT

Does anyone know what radio station carries Rush's show
in Boston/Cambridge area?  I listen to his show every time
I get home (NYC) but I haven't been able to find him here.

Please e-mail to grisha@athena.mit.edu 


-- 
****************************************************
*    Live from New York, it's Saturday Night!!!    *
****************************************************
*  To err is human; to forgive is not our policy   *
****************************************************
* Grigory Golberg, PI        grisha@athena.mit.edu *
****************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck)
Subject: Re: Free at last!!
Keywords: Liberals, Republican Prez, Why?
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:31:03 GMT

We are free at last from an executive branch which believes
that it is above the law, and that its purpose is to enrich
private individuals.  At least I hope that will turn out to
be the case.  We're free from a guy who calls himself a
conservative, but who has taken initiatives on any number
of occasions to increase the size and power of his own
branch of government.  We are free from someone who caters
to the right wing, e.g. Rush Limbaugh and the TV preachers.
We are free to tell our children that the way to the top is
not the way of crime.

f.deck

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13631 soc.women:23000
From: sals@llewella.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: William Jefferson Blythe Clinton's education
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:14:02 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1993Jan26.150017.19821@husc3.harvard.edu>  writes:
>> 
> Third, Rhodes Scholarships are very competitive, and by no means
> were they awarded frivolously, just to help people avoid the draft.
> Now, I don't deny that some of the recipients thought that draft
> avoidance was a side benefit of Rhodes Scholarships.  But that was
> *not* the reason they were awarded.  Rhodes Scholarships generally
> go to people who show outstanding promise in their chosen fields;
> many, many straight-A students are rejected.  In fact, I believe
> the total number awarded each year is in the double digits only.
> 
I beleive there are 32 given in the US plus a few in germany and other  
countries.
> Fifth -- and I am less sure about this point, unlike the others, 
> so please correct me if I am wrong -- Rhodes scholars don't get
> a separate degree for their time at Oxford.  It's kind of like
> a two-year (?) long research project.  I have never heard anywhere
> that Bill Clinton did not finish whatever it was he was studying,
> but on the other hand I have also never heard definitively that
> he *did* finish either, so I can't make any final pronouncements on
> this one.
Rhodes scholars usually do get a degree for their three years at Oxford.  
The degree can be a second undergrad degree or a graduate degree. It's  
interesting that Clinton's failure to get a degree wasn't publicized in  
the media before the election.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14030 talk.politics.misc:70135
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:33:54 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <C1Hs2M.3DH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>   He was correct, because we tried in vain to buy freon anywhere in town. He
>>was finally told that the only place to go was a garage where they have the
>>new EPA approved delivary systems for R-12.  The cost for a garage to do this
>>$6 job is now $110.  That is a 1733% increase in cost, and it is another
>>example of the price we will pay for our environment.

>Except it was never a $6 job.  It was $6 for the can, and $200+ for the
>environmental damage.  Just because you didn't have to directly pay for the 
>damage you did to the environment by wasting away the ozone, doesn't
>mean that it was less "costly" before the regulations.

  So, where did you get the $200+ figure from?  I agree that R-12 is _probably_
bad for the earth.  To what extentent is unknown, and how people changing
their own air conditioner coolent figures into the equation is completely 
unknown.  Sorry, I don't buy your figures.


>>  I am not against protecting the environment, but should we have to pay
>>this type of cost?  Why didn't someone figure out a way to lower the cost
>>before they implemented the regulations?

>Hey, you can pay the cost either in regulating freon usage so it doesn't
>leak and kill the ozone, or you can pay the cost with the extra risk of
>cancer to the next ten thousand generations.  Your call.  


    What I am concerned about is a knee-jerk responce by the EPA.  Why did
they go with this outright ban?  Whatever happened to phasing something out?
They did the phase out with leaded gas, and it worked well.  Do you honestly
believe that freon causes such a clear and present danger as to call for the
immediate regulation?  I think not.  This is another example of a government
which is legislation happy.  They are drunk on their power, and wield it withou
much regard for consequences.  A phasing out process over 5 years would have
allowed people, and technology to catch up.  Of course governmental types don't
think about the general populus.
 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Special Rights for Heterosexuals
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 07:44:52 GMT

In article <ReFPXB6w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:

>One can begin to save some money (at least on taxes; though I spend far
>more on formula and Pampers) when children arive, propagation of the
>human race is probably one of the few things I can think of that might
>be deserving of a tax break.

Not in this day and age.  Let's talk about donations to Planned
Parenthood and the United Negro College Fund, now.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Supposed Bentsen Quote
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<C1G0Fp.MLw@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	<1993Jan26.045842.26236@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:51:12 GMT

>>>>> On 26 Jan 93 04:58:42 GMT, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom
Perigrin) said: 
Tom> Today Rush played (twice at least) what he claimed was the
Tom> recorded voice of an interview with Senator Lloyd Bentsen,
Tom> now Secretary of the Treasury.  In this supposed recording, a
Tom> voice said something on the order of "Those middle class
Tom> voters will fall for a lie about tax cuts every time."

Tom> Was this really Bentsen's voice, and did he really say this
Tom> to mean this, or was it taken out of context?  (i.e. Did
Tom> Bentsen really say something like "[The republicans believe
Tom> that] those middle class..."?)

Bentsen might well have said something like that. But.

The voice is a sound-alike. Regular listeners may remember when the fellow
called the program a short time back and Rush fed him several lines to say
for recording. Rush was extremely amused by the whole prospect; the
sound-alike guy was fairly gracious and apologized to Bentsen before 
he hung up.

Tom> Prepared to be aghast, but I've been lied to with misquotes
Tom> before...

It's not the first time sound-alike voices have been used on his
program, but, as everyone knows, it's "all in fun". In fact, Rush
frequently injects little disclaimers about the simulated voice spots.

I hear someone is working on another magazine article on Rush and they
plan to use several pictures of Rush mugging idiotic looks on his TV program.
Turn about fair play I suppose. But they won't have to have any disclaimers,
as the dumb looks are not a simulation.

Thank heavens we all have a sense of humor! Right?

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Because the plot demands: an EVIL man!

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13416 alt.politics.clinton:20880 alt.politics.bush:16241 alt.politics.homosexuality:10001
From: johnch@test22.sun.com (Slam the Crank from Wheezer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 21 Jan 93 18:23:48
Organization: Impossible Missions Force
Distribution: usa
	<1993Jan8.233736.2023@asl.dl.nec.com>
	<1993Jan9.044818.21471@anasazi.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: test22
In-reply-to: john@anasazi.com's message of Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:48:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.044818.21471@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:

   In article <1993Jan8.233736.2023@asl.dl.nec.com> dillhoff@aslws01.asl.dl.nec.com (Doug Dillhoff) writes:
   ]
   ]A special news program on LSD was aired (CBS 01/07?) the other night
   ]which showed several cases of psychological problems caused by LSD.
   ]They also showed a few users who were thought to have damaged parts
   ]of their brains causing acute sensitivity to bright lights and certain
   ]sounds. There were other cases also presented. There have also been
   ]deaths associated with the use of LSD.

I heard Timothy Leary on the radio about ten years ago saying he
definitely wouldn't advise doing any street acid, due to the
impossibility of knowing what's really in it.  Were these affected
people research subjects, getting reliably pure doses, or were they
getting it from their local crack dealer?

   Including my cousin, who on July 4, 1968, while stoned on LSD,
   doused herself from a gasoline pump and lit a match. It took her
   7 months to die.

Without meaning to diminish the tragedy of your cousin's death, I
suspect there were factors besides LSD.  For one, a culture-wide
earthquake called 1968.  I also wouldn't trivialize LSD, but I think
the abuse potential is low, because it doesn't produce a quick, cheap,
comfortable high, like, say, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, nicotine,
caffeine, . . . .  But it sure does scare people when you talk about
it!

   Nevertheless, as life's hazards go, LSD isn't that high on the list.

Couldn't agree more.

-- JC
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13845 talk.abortion:57953
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 25 Jan 1993 17:12:32 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <lm8rioINNgt7@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:

>stuff deleted.

>>>Were it up to me, I
>>>would look for another alternative.

>>Can you tell us what other alternatives occur to you?

>I admit, not a whole lot.  Embryo transplants.  "Metal mommas".  Better
>contraceptives.  I fear our medical expert, Mark Cochran (who _still_
>won't tell me what T.S.A.K.C. stands for), could knock most of my ideas
>down as impractical, since he could argue circles around me when it
>comes to the medical profession.

>But then, I'm just one person, and a CS major at that.  There _are_
>other people working on "another alternative", people who are more
>qualified than I.

One presumes you are old enough to vote, or soon, anyhow.  GIVEN that there
are no metal mommas, and contraceptives are not yet 'better', and embryo
transplants have their own limitations (a lack of receiving wombs being one
of them), how do you propose we handle the alternatives available TODAY?

>It seems the majority of the population sees this is a problem with only
>two solutions:  either the fetus gets its life, or the mother gets her
>privacy. 


Today, I'd agree with most of the population that this is the nature of our
problem, myself.  Sorta Kinda.  Afterall, women who want children allow the
fetus its life, and the mother retains her privacy -- it's just that the 
privacy includes the fetus.  We are really only speaking of the other 94% of
the female population.  Yeah, that group.  The group of adult women who don't
want to become pregnant, which is most of us.

We don't have that whiz bang technology yet that will render this argument
moot.  So what do *you* propose we do?  I propose that we let individuals
settle the matter individually, according to their own consciences.

Adrienne Regard
From: roberts@triton.unm.edu (Robert Smathers)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Larry King (daytime?) he he
Date: 29 Jan 1993 04:34:33 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
NNTP-Posting-Host: triton.unm.edu

In article <1k5a54INNpbj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aj234@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Woolard) writes:
>
>Does Larry really think he has the heart (he he) to compete head to head
>with RUSH. I think not, but I bet the main stream press will give some
>serious coverage to this competition. In the end we will see who the 
>real king is. Stay tuned, Febuary 1, 1993, Larry King goes head to head
>with RUSH. Can you believe Larry is giving up his comfortable throne to


Larry King and Rush are not going head on.  Larry King's show starts
when Rush's ends -- I think Mutual and Larry King knew it would be
no match if they tried to go head to head with Rush.

Rush would clearly win!  

Robert
roberts@triton.unm.edu
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:27:03 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Free at last!!

In article <1993Jan21.153103.17132@news.nd.edu>, fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu
(francis deck) says:

>We are free at last from an executive branch which believes
>that it is above the law, and that its purpose is to enrich
>private individuals.

Um, explain to me the difference between enriching private individuals and
improving the economy (which is composed mainly of private individuals).

Or did you mean -certain- individuals?  Be specific; one might get the
impression that you're a Communist...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13544 talk.politics.misc:69317
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:01:51 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
 <1993Jan22.174046.17956@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>

In article <1993Jan22.174046.17956@cbnewsc.cb.att.com>,
bermes@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Terry Bermes) says:

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

>        Hmmm, in a single paragraph, you went from a rush-droid's speculation
>of a Clinton tactic to assuming it's fact.  This certainly adds credibility

I did no such thing.  It's called 'speculation.'  ...for crying out loud.

>to the anti-Clinton side.  Is it even remotely possible that Clinton truly
>wanted Baird as AG?  Nah!  There's got to some conspiracy to fool the public

Geez, I come up with a theory (which I think could be true), and everyone
starts calling me paranoid!  Why are you all so defensive?  Were you all in
on it??? ;-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 23:17:12 EST
From: Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Inherant characteristics of inanimate objects
Distribution: usa
 <1993Jan24.165254.23658@rchland.ibm.com>
 <1993Jan25.013141.29944@EE.Stanford.EDU>

In article <1993Jan25.013141.29944@EE.Stanford.EDU>, budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU
(David Budd) says:
>Reagan wasted tons of money, huh? Like spending millions to have
>the 411-phone info line for the district of columbia moved
>to west virginia? oops. sorry, that was Senator Byrd... Like having
>money appropriated for a Lawrence Welk museum in North Dakota? oops.
>it was the profligate congress again.. sorry.
>our cities went straight to hell because of reagan, huh? yup. he tacitly
>encouraged drug use when he was caught smoking crack in a d.c. hotel.
>wrong again... that was marion barry.
>boy, that damned reagan. what a mess he made.

Yup. You got it.

Our destroyed cities aren't the fault of corruption in HUD, massive
social cutbacks, and generally insane redistribution of wealth upwards...
they're the fault of Marion Barry. By the mere act of smoking crack in
a hotel room, he singlehandedly caused all the problems of poverty,
drug addiction, and homelessness.

Our $4 trillion national debt isn't the fault of gigantic increases in
spending for useless weapons, simultaneous tax cuts, and totally demented
back-of-the-napkin economic policy; it's because of that damned Lawrence
Welk museum. If we hadn't built that museum, we'd have $4 trillion in the
bank, right now, this instant.

Yes, it makes PERFECT sense.

HIDDEN MESSAGE: Don't sweat the small stuff.

     "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
   DISCLAIMER: Penn State University cares about my money, not my opinions.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14149 talk.abortion:58526
From: cobb@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:08:53 GMT

All right, so I'm new.  COuld you please explain the sentience thing again, and
why it's ok to kill humans that aren't sentient?

Thanks

MAC
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13870 talk.politics.misc:69831
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why are conservatives so stupid ?
Keywords: liberals, conservatives, intellegence
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:49:32 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

<C1Fp5G.KKH@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:

[some stuff deleted]
>both.  I get annoyed by the seemingly irrational and, yes, unintelligent 
>people who call themselves conservative, and yet are simply self-appointed
>Moralists who think that somehow they can actually define what everyone
>ought to value, who feel prayer must be the default setting in a supposedly
>free nation, and who seem to enjoy the idea of bombing things and people (even
>if these people are demonstrably innocent pawns of a dictator we propped up to
>fight the Cold War).  These self-proclaimed moral enforcers  are indeed 
>irrational, trying to press their will on a whole nation, even if it hurts 
>more people than it helps.  

Thank you.  I may disagree with some of your policies, but I find your position
worthy of respect.

Tom
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh