HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies, Redwood City
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:33:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.210431.9810@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.170749.23176@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

>>Before your baby is born try to use him/her as a tax deduction. Let us know
>>how you make out. One more time---the pro-choice position has been and is
>>that the woman has a choice to have an abortion if she desires BUT late term
>>abortions should only be allowed unless to save the life of the mother. One 

>Speak for yourself, white man. Some of us believe that the woman's health,
>including mental health, are important. Others of us believe that in cases
>of rape or incest, late abortions should be an option.

I believe that a women's physical and mental health are very important. How
is waiting till the last second to decide to have an abortion aiding in 
either of these catagories? 
If a woman is raped why in the world would she want to wait 4+ months AFTER
finding out she was pregant to opt for an abortion. By the 2nd tri pregency
is at best inconveint for the mother. In reality it causes much discomfort
and restricts her a great deal. I would think any woman, after being raped and
finding out she was pregant would want an abortion right away. Can't buy this 
arguement---it just doesn't make sense. Same goes for incest. Only difference 
there might be a incest-u-us(can't spell)parent preventing a girl from seeking 
an abortion. I think that it would be reasonable to make an exception if
somehow the woman's freedom was being restricted but I would expect those
type of cases to be an extremely small %age. Once more--in my previous posts
I have said over and over and over that the it is the large majority of
people that consider themselves pro-choice are in favor of some restrictions.
I have also stated over and over and over that there exist smaller groups
that are pro-choice that do not share that believe. Why is it that over and
over and over people like you choose to ignore that part of my posts and start
screaming that there are those who have a different opinion?

Stan Knight
|Try reading entire post instead of searching for sound bites|
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: na 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:48:14 GMT

In <1992Oct13.004408.13860@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.221124.27909@news.yale.edu> 
>rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

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

>>> Maybe it's me, but when a baby (or a baby-to-be, whatever you'd like to
>>> call it!) becomes a PARASITE, I think there's a MAJOR problem with our
>>> society.

>> Why? It IS a parasite. It's living off the woman in who's body it
>> is living. It is damaging her body and giving her nothing  if she does
>> not want it.

>Then you must also agree that an infant sucking on a woman's breast
>is also a "parasite", since the infant is living off the woman, 
>damaging her body, and giving her nothing if she does not want
>the infant.  

But the child feeding at the breast does give something. I can't give
the exact medical report, but my understanding is that breast feeding
causes reactions that speed the restoration of a woman's internal
organs to their pre-pregnancy state, or at least as much as possible.
Perhaps one of the ladies posting here can state whether I am right,
or is this an old wives tale?


>>Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu


>Doug Holtsinger

REB
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: neil.black@eabbs.uucp (Neil Black) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: RUSH: OUT OF A JOB?
Date: 6 Oct 92 11:18:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Easy Access BBS - San Ramon CA - 510-829-7627
Reply-To: neil.black@eabbs.uucp (Neil Black) 

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....
        
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:57:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.222643.17181@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.170405.6878@nwnexus.WA.COM>
>jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>
>> There is no third alternative yet.
>> Come up with one and we'll discuss it.
>
>How about ABSTINENCE? (No, I forgot, that's a dirty word around
>here!...)
>

Gee, I thought I made myself clear...I guess not.  How in the hell does
ABSTINENCE STOP PREGNANCY?  Abortion stops pregnancy.  I want an alternative
to abortion.  I don't want an alternative to sex.  

Like I said before, apparently not clear enough for some people to get it...
Give me an alternative to abortion that stops a pregnancy and we'll
discuss it.

Jennifer
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's attack on Clinton's Arkansas have some
Date: 12 Oct 92 04:52:22 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

Even National Review thinks that Bush's attacks on Arkansas and on
Clinton's "128 tax hikes" is stupid and counter-productive. And it does
seem somewhat desperate. 

I'm no Bush fan, but it does seem to me that if there is a human being who
deserves to be President EVEN LESS THAN BUSH, that man is Slick Willie. I
don't mind that he dodged the draft; I DO care that he lied about it. I
don't much care that he smoked dope; I DO care that he lied about it. I
don't care that he went to Moscow; I DO care that he seems somehow
"ashamed" of it. Otherwise, why hide it? Why not trumpet the fact, to
counteract the "IHOP" comments from the Republican Convention? 

Somebody up several dozen messages said that if Bush/Quayle, Clinton/Gore,
and Perot/Stockdale were the best this country could produce, that we're
in REAL trouble. I'll go along with that! (Though I DO have great
admiration ofr Adm. Stockdale; too bad that ticket isn't the other way
around. Come to that, too bad Bush/Quayle isn't the other way around!)

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: eg1@ra.msstate.edu (Ernie Gammon)
Subject: Re: Summary Thurs 10/15/92
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:13:50 GMT

tem1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Miller) writes:


>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Tim Miller		     |  "The only thing we have to fear, is fear     |
>   tem1@Ra.MsState.Edu	     |    itself [and Bill Clinton]"		     |
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
					         |
						 |
					You got that right!!!  



>			     | "Within each of us lies the power of our      |
>Mississippi State University |  consent to health and to sickness, to riches |
>Major:  Chemistry/Physics    |  and to poverty, to freedom and to slavery.   |
>Minor:  Mathematics	     |  It is we who control these, and not another" |
>			     |      ---Illusions, by Richard Bach	     |
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ernie
.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7502 alt.politics.clinton:10666 alt.politics.bush:9320
From: pdchapin@unix.amherst.edu (PAUL D CHAPIN)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Reasonable men may differ: Capital Gains Tax
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:23:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amherst College
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

: But if the capital gains tax is cut to around 15%, the rich will invest
: more -- even though there is higher risk, they'll pay *less* in taxes,
: and that makes it worth it.
: 
Nice assumption, but a lot of us aren't convinced that the amount of 
increased investment will be that great.  As long as the general economy
is being dragged down by the effect of massive national debt, there is
little incentive to invest in new factories to make something nobody can
afford to buy.
: 
: LIBERAL
: -------
: 
: We can't lower the capital gains tax, because that would help the rich.
: 
After years of Republican economics driving us to ruin, we don't trust the
argument that if we make a lot of rich people even richer, eventually it 
will get to the rest of us.  The increased concentration of wealth in the
last decade would argue against this.  The best comment on trickle down
economics came from Gary Hart in 1984.  "Do you feel trickled on?"

It should be noted that most of the Democratic candidates for President
including Clinton, but most notably Tsongas, have some form of investment
tax program.  The programs are much more narrowly defined to eliminate
tax breaks for non-productive capita gains.

I'm not sure of the current Bush proposal, but the original was for
only a limited time and covered all capital gains.  The result is that
it rewarded and encouraged speculation rather than real investment.
The time limit had the odd result of encouraging a lot of turn over of
assets to lock in the tax savings.  This would, of course, make the
budget look better in the short run, but would cause bigger debts
later when the assets would normally have been sold and taxed.

If anybody knows the details of the current Bush proposal, please jump in.
Unlike the republicans, I don't want to misrepresent the opposition.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman)
Subject: Re: Are Republicans Evil? (yes they are!)
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:38:23 GMT

In article <5772@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman) writes:
>-They didn't seem to mind Jim Crow laws or exploiting race hatred.
>
>Excuse me, but when were Jim Crow laws established? Oh, shortly after
>Reconstruction. What was the party in office in the Southern states that
>passed such laws? <Democrats>
>
>How easy we forget that P.B.S. Pinchback (during reconstruction) was a
>black lieutenant governor of Louisiana. And he was a Republican.

Let's talk about what's going on in this century.  When the Jim Crow laws were
overturned, the Solid South suddenly started voting Republican.  Ronald
Reagan launched his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, MS - a town that is only
known for being the site of the murder of those three civil rights workers.
What about Willie Horton?

>
>->The Democrats, on the other hand, believe fully in group rights
>->(Homosexual, Women, Blacks, and so on).  The Founders were unquestionably
>->of the opinion that they were describing INDIVIDUAL rights.  The Democrats
>->are trying to use "group rights" to achieve their goal to make us all 
>->equal in the end (yuck).  In this regard they are out of step with the
>->thinking of the Founders.  Group rights make some people more equal than
>->others, it makes one think that because one is a woman that their rights
>->are more important than someone else who is NOT a member of that group.
>->
>-
>-What the hell are you talking about?
>
>I think he's talking about how the Democrats seem to be in favor of
>privileges for groups of Americans to the detriment of other more
>predominant groups (i.e., WASPs). How they will accuse Republicans of
>being racists for not being in approval of the Democrats' Civil Rights
>Bills, of being sexists for approving Clarence Thomas to the Supreme
>Court or not allowing women in combat or family leave, of being
>homophobes because they don't approve of the spending levels that the
>Democrats want for AIDS research even though this country has put AIDS
>as the number 1 disease for research grants, etc. Basically, if you
>disagree with Democrats, you don't Care about anyone else but yourself.
>That's what I think he's talking about.
>-- 

Only a few cranks want these "group rights".  Most people want equal rights 
for everybody.  This "group rights" crap is a smokescreen.  I just want a level
playing field.

Clarence Thomas was not qualified for the Supreme Count anyway.  His nomination
was just affirmative action for Black conservatives - a very small minority!

Norm
 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: More deception from your hero, not mine
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:46:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.123345.14568@sinkhole.unf.edu>, jdough@unf6.unf.edu (Joseph Dougherty) writes:

|> 	I think you miss the point of his diatribe. When Bush was on his show
|> a few weeks ago, he made the point much better. Here's Clinton, a man who's
|> only the Democratic candidate because he wound up with most of a small pool
|> of primary votes (Bush didn't say *that*, that comment is mine), telling
|> the President of the United States that he wants to debate based on a format
|> set up by some unheard-of group of people.

	Unheard of? You mean like Gerald Ford, the assistant chairman of
	the committe? Or the former head of the Republican Party? 

-- 
                               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
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:53:04 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH: OUT OF A JOB?
 <1992Oct7.201838.19131@cs.mcgill.ca>

In article <1992Oct7.201838.19131@cs.mcgill.ca>, costin@cs.mcgill.ca (Costin
RIZAN) says:

>        Notice he didn't say that he was treatened by Rush. All he said
>basically was that Rush is an imbecile. An opinion that most people with
>a double digit I.Q. share.

Damn right.  Those of us with three (or four) digits in our IQs recognize
his talent and brilliance.  (And, I'm sure, a considerable percentage of
double-digiters, more than the latest NBC poll would have indicated :)

...that was just too easy.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7371 alt.activism.d:3868 alt.politics.elections:16686 alt.politics.bush:9087 alt.politics.clinton:10329 talk.politics.misc:51647 talk.abortion:42579
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
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: 12 Oct 92 17:06:02 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

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
 


-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Feminism
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:52:18 GMT

In article <Bvzu3I.M16@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
$ 
$ 	It is sometimes said of RL's use of "feminazi" that there is a
$ certain kind of extremist feminist that it appropriately refers to.
$ While there are _some_ feminists that can be called extremists, I
$ think that RL is trying to smear _all_ feminists, since he has not
$ described what he considers legitimate feminist positions.
$ 
$ 	To make myself clearer on this, let us suppose that RL had a
$ habit of denouncing "shylock" Jewish bankers. Would it be a legitimate
$ defense of him to insist that some Jewish bankers are indeed little
$ better than loan sharks? This kind of remark would make it sound like
$ he considers _all_ Jews to be the sort of sleazy characters who become
$ loansharking bankers.
$ 
>
>Rush has said, about 8 zillion times, that he figures that there are less
>than two dozen "femi-nazis" in America; he defines "femi-nazi" as a person
>who gets angry when an abortion DOES NOT happen. 

	And would you appreciate it if he was to repeatedly denounce
"shylocks", but when pressed on this issue to explain that he had in
mind only the tiny number of Jews who charge exorbitant interest
rates?

	This "the more abortions, the better" feminist is a school of
thought I have never heard of, though some women are certainly better
off not having children at some particular time. Even if there were
such feminists, I don't see why such characters are worth getting
worked up over as a threat to civilization as RL does.

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: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:29:45 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
>future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
>and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
>then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
>against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....

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.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 14:46:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.213133.21202@calspan.com>
schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel) writes:
 
>In article <lcet04INN354@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>|>
>>What is absurd is that there is any communication at all.  After all,
>>the entire argument is based upon the disagreement over whether or not
>>the fetus is person.  I haven't seen one argument that doesn't
>>resort to this decision of faith (after all there is no way to prove
>>either side is correct) as the "final argument."
>>
>
>You are absolutely right.  However, since we are and cannot be
>sure if and when it is a person, shouldn't we err on the side
>of caution?
>
Yes...absolutely.  Since we are not sure, we should be very cautious
about restricting the freedom of the living person to make the choice
she feels best.
 
Jim McMaster
From: tem1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Thurs 10/15/92
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:30:22 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison) writes:



>     Today, Rush and his listeners, a bunch of brain-dead sad sacks who
>haven't read fifteen books in their lifetimes, will piss and moan about
>Bill Clinton, the man who, in less than three weeks, will be elected
>President of the United States.
>-- 
>     Vern Morrison              |    
>     aa680@po.cwru.edu          |   read my .sig: join the Clinton/Gore
>     vern@cray.csuohio.edu      |               email team!  
>     Parma, Ohio: the 'burbs    |     write 75300.3115@compuserve.com     

Considering one of Clinton's supporters called into Rush's TV show and
the following transpired:    
    "Rush:  Why are you voting for Clinton?
    Caller: Because he's gonna create jobs.
     Rush:  How?
    Caller: well.......(long pause)  Just you wait and see!"

If I were you, I wouldn't be so brave and gallant at throwing around the
term 'brain dead sad sacks' becuase, for all we know, you could be that 
caller (despite the fact the caller was from Baton Rouge, there is no way
to discern whether you are any different)

Great supporters of Clinton...(sarcastic)
Tim Miller


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Miller		     |  "The only thing we have to fear, is fear     |
   tem1@Ra.MsState.Edu	     |    itself [and Bill Clinton]"		     |
			     | "Within each of us lies the power of our      |
Mississippi State University |  consent to health and to sickness, to riches |
Major:  Chemistry/Physics    |  and to poverty, to freedom and to slavery.   |
Minor:  Mathematics	     |  It is we who control these, and not another" |
			     |      ---Illusions, by Richard Bach	     |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:25:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.013258.6779@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>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

How Adrienne's comment is "whacked-out" is never explained.  But
anyway... he later writes

>INDIVIDUAL. When that individual is aborted, that blueprint for life is
>terminated. A baby that may have been a genius. The baby that may have
>the found the cure for AIDS, or the cure for cancer, now lying in a

Hah!  I knew you'd bring in this tired old argument.  Anyway, if a
fetus is aborted, it could be another Einstein or Davinci as you
suggest.  It could also be another Hitler or Jeffrey Dahmer.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.

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: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:09:32 GMT

James Douglas Del-Vecchio <n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu> writes:
>Josh Rovero <rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil> writes:
>>Clinton impresses me more and more as a man of principle.   NOT!
>
>	The issue as I understand it, is not merely that he went to
>the Soviet Union so soon afterwards, but that he denied going there
>when asked about it on television.

Sorry, I don't believe that. For me to believe that Clinton denied going
to the Soviet Union, you are going to have to quote who said it and when.
I don't think you can.

Please stop the lies.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh