HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:55:10 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh who?
 <1993Jan22.143157.24098@ryn.mro4.dec.com>

In article <1993Jan22.143157.24098@ryn.mro4.dec.com>,
shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) says:

>>Call me stupid,
>>but after watching his show for a couple of
>>minutes and reading about 30 of theses posts, I STILL cannot
>>figure out what he's about? or basically, is he a Liberal
>>Democrat or Conservative Republican or a green Martian???

>Rush takes a WHOLE LOT LONGER to understand than just a few minutes. To
>completely get in tune with him it takes several months.

Hey, be gentle.  Some people are so used to Leno, Letterman and Arsenio,
whom you can understand after watching for about 5 minutes.

OK, OK, Letterman may take 15 minutes, but big deal... :)

>To find out that he is an ultra right wing conservative republican takes more
>than just a few  minutes, but definitely not any more than a single show.

>Maybe your attention span is just too short.

Probably right.  Most late night shows, you don't really have to pay
attention -or- think anymore.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.abortion
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Fetal Rights of Inheritance
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 21:11:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.4673.12392@dosgate> "david meadows" <david.meadows@canrem.com> writes:
>Here's a question for all you pro-choice advocates out there.
>
>Let's imagine a family ... Mom, dad, a couple of kids and one on the 
>way. Dad has a good job, mom's on maternity leave. Dad and the two 
>kids get killed in a fiery car wreck. Dad leaves no will. Two days 
>later, mom gives birth. Does that child have any right to inherit from 
>his or her father? 

Depends on the state.  The common law was willing to recognize the
legal fiction (note the word "fiction") that would call the unborn
child a "life in being" assuming the mother was willing to undergo 
the procedure required by a writ de ventre inspiciendo.  To quote
Blackstone, "The writ directs that, in the presence of knights and
women, the female tractari per uberum et ventrum, -- the presumed
necessity of the case dispensing at once with common decency and
with respectful deference to sex."  Next question. 

>If so, that child must have a legal personality in the womb, no?

"Legal personality in the womb" is neither equivalent to nor does it
inextricably lead to "abortion is always illegal."  An "unborn widow"
that has never been nor never will be conceived is also a "legal 
personality" in similar circumstances, but I doubt we'd want a legal
regime that worries more about fertile octagenarians than it already
does.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: What will Bush and Quayle do now?
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:36:53 GMT

psburns@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS) writes:
>I am just interested in knowing what Bush and Quayle are planning to do 
>with themselves now that their administration is behind them?  Fish?  Ski? 
>Have either of them made any plans?  I think I heard on the news that Bush 
>is building a new home somewhere,  leading me to believe retirement is his 
>choice.   How about Quayle?

    I've heard speculation along a couple of lines. IMO he has three 
reasonably good options. 1) He can go into a semi-retired version of 
private life, hitting the lecture circuits and maintaining some 
visibility in preparation for a shot at the presidency in '96.  2) He 
could do basically the same thing but at the state level in Indiana 
with the objective of either (a) getting back into Congress or (b) 
taking Evan Bayh's place as Governor when Bayh leaves in '96.

    I would rate the difficulty of option 1 as rather high, though it 
obviously has the biggest pay-off. Options 2a and 2b are a lot more 
attainable, and they might give Quayle a better long term position for 
advancing in the party than an immediate attempt to grab the nomination 
next time around. Either way I think we'll be seeing Dan back in the 
spotlight sometime. As an Indiana resident, I'm hoping that he goes for 
option 1 and wins the grand prize. Arkansas isn't the only state where 
people have heaved sighs of relief when their local politicians packed 
up and went to Washington.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: control
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 22:36:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.210053.38071@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>[Note:  Simmonds' post hasn't yet shown up here, but since I've seen not only
>Mark's response, but a followup to Mark from Simmonds that ended with:
>   still waiting for Mr. Margolis to answer
>I'm going to reply to Mark's post and assume nothing (significant) was deleted
>by Mark.]
>
Larry, Larry, Larry...
Read his stuff some more. I could have deleted the entire message
without deleting anything 'significant'...

>I agree with Mark that the scenario is nonsensical.  In addition, the
>following is incorrect:
>>>knocked out (read: is no longer sentient)
>
>since "sentient" refers to *capability*.  A person retains their
>capacity for thought when unconscious, even though they may not
>be exercising that capability at the moment; contrast this with
>an embryo which lacks the capability.
>
>*Has* he violated anyone's rights?  Not intentionally or consciously
>(again, different from a non-sentient fetus or embryo, which *can't*
>intentionally or consciously do *anything*).  *Is* he violating anyone's
>rights?  Yes - he's violating the woman's right to bodily autonomy.
>
>Now I've got one for you.  A man is walking through Central Park, minding
>his own business, when someone shoots him with a dart gun, administering
>a hypnotic drug, and orders him to go out and rape the next woman that
>he sees.
>
>Is the man "innocent" or "guilty"?
>
He's guilty, if he commits the act of rape. He may get off on the
legal aspect if he can prove he was not in control of his mind, but
he's still guilty of the act. My understanding is that 'not guilty by
reason of insanity' is the same as 'guilty, but not really his
fault'.

>Does the woman have the right to kill him if necessary to prevent her
>body from being violated?

Yup, sure does, as far as I'm concerned. But Eddie doesn't care about
women, his only concern is the fetus. He's said so, and given us no
reason to believe that he was anything less then 100% serious.

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13794 alt.rush-limbaugh:15122
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What will Bush and Quayle do now?
Date: 25 Jan 93 01:51:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <15590.2b5ee646@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
[responding to "What will the Quayles do now?"]  
>But won't that be a violation of her "essential nature as a woman"? I thought
>she gave up her career for her family? Is there a contradiction here? Or is
>it now that since Dan is unemployable, that she has to be a working mother?

Marilyn Quayle quit her career for two resons:
1) So as not to upstage her husband in the expression of each's mental
   ability in public.
2) To be Dan Quayle's trophy wife. (Yuck--the ugliest trophy in Washington; but
   I digress. To use a line from Rush Limbaugh: "She can't help the way she
   looks!")

Dan
------
who knows one of the Quayles to be a hypocritical bitch, and the other to be
unemployed
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: abortion logic
Date: 22 Jan 1993 22:44 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

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.

G

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: The Land of Make Believe
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 25 Jan 93 10:11:52 CST


In article <RNeuXB1w165w@missing.kludge.com>, pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden) writes:
> Recently President William Jefferson (Blythe IV) Clinton made a visit to
> Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.  President Clinton made some comment that if
> more American neighborhoods were like Mr. Roger's neighborhood the 
> country would be a much nicer place.
> 
> Mr. Roger's gave President Clinton a Trolly car.  Does everyone here 
> remember back to Mr. Roger's TV Show???   The trolly was symbolic and
> the means by which Mr. Roger's could take all of his viewers to the land 
> of make believe.
> 
> Now, not only can President Clinton have a convenient means of getting 
> back and forth from reality to make believe, he can take as many 
> Americans as he can load onto the trolly with him.

Yea, why can't he just use an astrologer like the Reagans.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: control
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 01:00:01 GMT

mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:

>In article <1993Jan23.210053.38071@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>[Note:  Simmonds' post hasn't yet shown up here, but since I've seen not only
>>Mark's response, but a followup to Mark from Simmonds that ended with:
>>   still waiting for Mr. Margolis to answer
>>I'm going to reply to Mark's post and assume nothing (significant) was deleted
>>by Mark.]
>>
>Larry, Larry, Larry...
>Read his stuff some more. I could have deleted the entire message
>without deleting anything 'significant'...

>>I agree with Mark that the scenario is nonsensical.  In addition, the
>>following is incorrect:
>>>>knocked out (read: is no longer sentient)
>>
>>since "sentient" refers to *capability*.  A person retains their
>>capacity for thought when unconscious, even though they may not
>>be exercising that capability at the moment; contrast this with
>>an embryo which lacks the capability.
>>
>>*Has* he violated anyone's rights?  Not intentionally or consciously
>>(again, different from a non-sentient fetus or embryo, which *can't*
>>intentionally or consciously do *anything*).  *Is* he violating anyone's
>>rights?  Yes - he's violating the woman's right to bodily autonomy.
>>
>>Now I've got one for you.  A man is walking through Central Park, minding
>>his own business, when someone shoots him with a dart gun, administering
>>a hypnotic drug, and orders him to go out and rape the next woman that
>>he sees.
>>
>>Is the man "innocent" or "guilty"?
>>
>He's guilty, if he commits the act of rape. He may get off on the
>legal aspect if he can prove he was not in control of his mind, but
>he's still guilty of the act. My understanding is that 'not guilty by
>reason of insanity' is the same as 'guilty, but not really his
>fault'.

>>Does the woman have the right to kill him if necessary to prevent her
>>body from being violated?

>Yup, sure does, as far as I'm concerned. But Eddie doesn't care about
>women, his only concern is the fetus. He's said so, and given us no
>reason to believe that he was anything less then 100% serious.

If you could read you would note that I said that saving the unborn
is my PRIMARY concern, not only concern.  Ever considered using
"Hooked on Phonics"?  I would strongly suggest it.


>--
>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
>These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
>Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
>Member, T.S.A.K.C.


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers, wondering why Mr. Cochran felt
		 like his input was desired in the conversation in
		 the first place.  



Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13817 talk.politics.guns:27129 alt.religion.computers:971 alt.peeves:19586
From: jennyg@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Well Paid in Name Only)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns,alt.religion.computers,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Gee, i don't Know...
Date: 25 Jan 1993 16:58:46 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucs.umass.edu

In article <1993Jan25.171103.2161@cci632.cci.com> ddg@cci632.cci.com (D. Dale Gulledge) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.225416.29672@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>>
>>ObPeeves: Housemates who will not allow one to
>>put Bouncing Betty's in the Bushes.... 
>
>I agree with your housemates.  They're murder on the bushes.

Hmmm, when I noticed that drieux had capitalized "Bushes," I'd
automatically assumed that he meant George, Bar, Millie, Neil, et al...

*My* new housemate thinks implanting any type of boom-boom device in
a Bush is  Good Thing.

Housemate peeves forthcoming when the novelty wears off....

Jenny

-- 
***************************************************************************
jennyg@titan.ucc.umass.edu is Jenny Gutbezahl @ Univ. of Mass, Amherst
****************************************************************************
"I'm not cheap, love.  Loud, but not cheap."  - Dil in The Crying Game
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: control
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:21:32 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In <C1C2JL.IE4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>
>If you really feel strongly about how important sentience is, assume that
>Bill's brain was removed, and will only be restored in 9 months.

"This in no way relates to abortion because in abortion" there was no previous
sentience, *only* the potential for future sentience.

>>Now I've got one for you.  A man is walking through Central Park, minding
>>his own business, when someone shoots him with a dart gun, administering
>>a hypnotic drug, and orders him to go out and rape the next woman that
>>he sees.
>
>>Is the man "innocent" or "guilty"?
>
>>Does the woman have the right to kill him if necessary to prevent her
>>body from being violated?
>
>Of course... but this is no way relates to abortion because in abortion
>the woman would have shot the dart herself.  Nice try though.

Next question - suppose she agrees to sex, but after starting, finds it
too painful, and asks him to stop.  He says, "Too bad - you invited me
in, and now I'm not going to stop until I'm done."  Rape?  And can she
stop him?
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13907 talk.abortion:58078
From: "david meadows" <david.meadows@canrem.com>
Subject: speaking of legal persona
Reply-To: "david meadows" <david.meadows@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: alt
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:09:21 EST

DX>Minor Point here: but corporations are legal persons,
  >does this mean that "Corporate Raiders" are actually
  >LIABLE FOR MURDER when they gut and run?

DX>Just wanted to see how we are going to handle
  >the matter of dealing with 'legal person.'

Very minor point indeed. We all know that a corporation who does harm 
to a human being can be sued and there are cases where directors of 
companies are put into jail. But you and I know very well that 
`corporate raiders' do not commit murder when they `gut and run'; 
that's simple economic darwinism: only the strong survive (unless, of 
course, some government intervenes to postpone the inevitable).

Good attempt at the logic trap though ...

David Meadows

Still wondering ...
---
  1st 1.02b #813  Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur -- Ulpian
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: control
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: NCSU
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:29:20 GMT

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

> 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.

Mark Cochran is no medical expert.  He _pretends_ to be one.
Just recently, he's been caught distorting the truth about 
cancer patient pain.  He's also manufactured a lie about the
existence of organ donor recipients for Baby Theresa.  Peter
Nyikos documented his confusion over the meaning of digitalis. 

> To be truthful, I subscribed to this newsgroup mainly
> to sharpen my debating skills, but maybe I ought to look in this a bit
> more.  

You should also _question_ people more thoroughly about their
alleged expertise in a field and the "facts" they present.  Don't
accept anything at face value, even it appears to be common sense.


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


Doug Holtsinger
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Winona State University
From: chrisa@vax2.winona.msus.edu
Date: 25 Jan 93 06:08:39 CST
Organization: Winona State University

Hello All

I attend Winona State Univ.  the school that Rush talked about on the Friday
Jan 22, 1993 TV show.

I was wondering if anyone taped this show, t really need a copy.  Let me know
what we can work out so that I can get a copy of it

Please Respond to my Internet Address since our usenet address is marginal at
best sometimes

Thank You
Chris Anderson
President - College Republicans
Winona State University

Internet Chrisa@vax2.Winona.MSUS.EDU

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13984 misc.legal:23430 talk.abortion:58242
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Rights of Inheritance
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:46:18 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <26JAN199310432954@oregon.uoregon.edu> dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be) writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.012347.8703@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM>,
> scc@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson) writes...
>>In Lucas v. Hamm, 364 P.2d 685 (Cal. 1961), a lawyer set up a trust wherein
>>the trust would terminate five years after the order of the probate court
>>distributing the property to the trustee.  This violates the RAP, because
>>the probate court *could* take more than 16 years...  The court said,
>> 
>>I feel that this negligence is entirely appropriate if anyone is allowed
>>to practise law with a license, passing the bar, or even going to law
>>school.  But this is not the case.  If the argument is that you need a
>>lawyer to deal with the ins and outs of the law, why not hold them liable
>>in such a situation?  After all, that's what you're paying for.
>
>I think the point in Lucas was that the court found the the lawyer in question
>had used reasonable care, and that the Rule was so confusing that it was
>foreseeable he might get it wrong.  As has often been noted, "[e]rror in
>judgment is not necessarily negligence."  _Reed v. Tacoma Railway & Power Co._,
>117 Wash. 547, ___, 201 P.2d 783, ___ (1921).

Any lawyer who runs afoul of the Rule Against Perpetuities is
presumptively negligent, IMHO.  It's bad enough that there *is* a
Rule Against Perpetuities, whose sole purpose is to trip up unwary
laypeople, but that's what a lawyer is supposed to know.  It's simply
inexcusable for a member of the bar to mess it up.   
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re:  Rush Military Record
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:21:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.161333.2300@athena.mit.edu> gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez) writes:

>Now let's compare Clinton to his peers:  George Bush; Bob
>Dole; Ross Perot; Pete Wilson.  Hmmm... they all served.

>Of course there was Ronald Reagan(did I spell this right), he
>didn't serve, but I don't recall him rattling his sabre any-
>where near as much as Clinton has been (Bosnia, Somalia,
>Iraq).  

Funny... I thought George rattled those sabres first...
What a going away present...

>I guess if he enters a war where they need to draft I
>can opt not to be drafted.  If it were Bush or Perot sending
>me I would go, if the little panderer Bill Clinton tries I 
>guess I'll have to get an ROTC deferment until I draw a high 
>draft number.

Our involvement in Viet Nam was NOT a success.
I would prefer to have a leader that knew it was a mistake 
at the time and would therefore avoid such fiascos in the 
future to one who still pretends that our Viet Nam involvement 
was a good thing.

Deciding whether to fight in a war on the basis of whether 
you like the supreme commander of the forces sounds 
a lot more cheesy to me than a decision based on whether 
you think the war is justified or not.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*