HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 02:46:53 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

kgowen@cie.uoregon.edu (Kevin Gowen) writes:

> In article <1993Jan02.093611.24497@microsoft.com> philipla@microsoft.com (Phi
> 
> >In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeye
> >>
> >>Hillary Clinton et.al. have reasoned, secularly, that children should be
> >>given the same legal rights and representation as adults, including the
> >>right to divorce their parents.
> >
> >    Can you document this?  I haven't heard anything of the sort.
> >
> 
> I believe this comes from an essay that Hillary Clinton wrote that was includ
> in a collection titled "Children's Rights: Contemporary Perspectives"
> published by Teacher's College Press in 1979.  Her main thesis was
> that the legal system's presumption of juvenile incompentence should be
> abolished and that a minor should be considered to have equal standing with
> adults unless proven incompetent. "Children should have a right to decide the
> own future if they are competent" is what Ms. Clinton said back then.
> Therefore, it is necessary to "...reverse the presumption of incompentency
> and instead assume all individuals are competent unless proven otherwise."
> 
> She also said that some decisions "should not be made unilaterally by
> parents" regarding areas "where the decision or lack of one will significantl
> affect the child's future."
> 
> In this 1979 essay, Hillary Clinton does *not* say outright, "I think that
> children should be allowed to sue and divorce their parents".  But in my
> opinion it can be easily derived from the ideas she presents in this essay.
>   
> >[rest deleted]
> 
> >Phil Lafornara         				1 Microsoft Way         
> 
> -kevin
> kgowen@cie.uoregon.edu
> 
> 


The idea of "divorce" from parents is in response to the fact that there 
are incredibly abusive and bad parents out there who even though they 
have proven themselves totally unfit parents insist on their "rightd" to 
there children.  Some poor kids end up being puuled out of families for 
specific reasons, various kinds of abuse, but the parents will not let 
them stay with a foster parent long.  This idae of divorce is to break 
this chain of abuse and let the poor kid get out of untenable situations, 
of continuing physical and emotional and sexual abuse.  It was meant only 
to be used in exceptional circumstances.

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 19:28:42 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1993Jan4.183927.8268@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>>>
>>> 1980 GNP 2732.0, defecit = 73.8, %GNP = .0270
>>> 1985 GNP 4014.9, defecit = 212.3, %GNP = .0529
>>> 1987 GNP 4536.7, defecit = 148.0, %GNP = .0327
>>> 1988 GNP 4864.3, defecit = 155.1, %GNP = .0319
>>> 1989 GNP 5200.8, defecit = 152.0, %GNP = .0292
>>
>>Mike, unless you plan on arguing that .0270 > .0292, you just disproved your
>>own assertion.
>>
>>The deficit as a percentage of GNP was higher at the end of the 1980's than
>>it was at the start of the 1980's.
>>
>
>You are not giving mike his due credit. Let us not forget 1992, with its
>399 billion dollar deficit. I do not have the figures on estimated GNP for
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The deficit for fiscal year 1992, which ended in September, was 290 billion.
Evidently you don't have any figures at all.


>the year available, but I am sure that it does not reach the 14.8 trillion
>dollars needed to mark an overall reduction in the deficit/GNP ratio in
>the reagan/bush years
>
>Robert Johnston


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"No matter what the subject, there is some group which wants government
 to regulate or  subsidize it, and  there are always those  in Congress
 eager to take  over more power  and control.  But it  is impossible to
 get something for  nothing.  The government  produces no goods, so  it
 can hand out  favors to some  people only by taking  the earnings  and
 property of others first."

                       From the Libertarian Party platform - 1992

===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Movin' on Up (was Re: Mail Bouncing)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 13:16:00 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1993Jan8.063922.16470@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>In a previous article, ij59@vaxb.acs.unt.edu () says:
>
>> By the way, incase no one's added it yet, the Carol Moseley Braun update 
>>theme is the theme from "The Jeffersons". I'm not sure if it has an official 
>>title or who sings it.
>
>Hehhe...
>
>You limbots amaze me.  You sit back and claim, oh, we're so correct, we're
>so intelligent, and after 3 days not ONE of you have been able to answer
>a simple trivia question.
>
>And now a LIBERAL is telling you, the song is titled "Movin' on Up", and it's
>performed by the Mississippi Mass Choir, with the lead being sung by
>Ja'net DuBios (who played the role of Walona Woods) on the television
>show it was the theme of.

Typical Liberal.  So certain, so arrogant, so condescending, and so wrong.  Ja'net
DuBois played the role of Walona on the series Good Times, the one that launched
J.J. Walker.  "Movin' on Up" was the theme song of The Jeffersons, and the lead is
sung by Isabel Sanford, who played Louise Jefferson.

>
>You can't figure out something that simple, but you want to run the world...
>
>Pathetic.

Ditto.



===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of 
 thinking we were at when we created them."

                                      Albert Einstein
===============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12316 talk.politics.misc:67372
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:56:31 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1993Jan10.234556.4658@europa.lonestar.org> tom@europa.lonestar.org (Tom Kimball) writes:

>Wrong.  The cause of the quadrupling of the national debt in the 1980's
>was Voodoo Economics.  The Reagan/Bush regime is what was responsible for
>Voodoo Economics, which they claimed would balance the budget by 1983.

 Who do you hate as a president ?
George Bush ? Who invented the term "voodoo economics" ? You are agreeing
with the man you hate. See how the media elites have brainwashed the vast
majority of americans. George Bush raised taxes and raised the deficits.
Raising taxes wont fix the deficit, yet the elites want you to think that
it will, why ? 

 See my other post on how the "national debt"  figures the media and political
elites talk about are only a small part of the governments liabilities. The
real substance is the unfunded future social security liabilities and future
federal retirement payments. The figures are over 10 trillion. Ross Perot
used the figure of 15 Trillion to describe the total government liabilities
that the elites are tring to hide from you. See my other post on how the
growing reagan boom lowered the "real total" liabilities of the government 
why all the elites were crying about the small liabilities the governmwent
pays interest on. Maybe the real fault of the Reagan boom was increasing
the GNP and tax revenues so much that the political elites were able to
increase spending by whole factors. :>

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Borgy Boy's squeals
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:10:07 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1993Jan11.202852.8346@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>In article <ksw7wB10w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>>Gee Borgy Boy, you sure hate Clinton don't ya.  Well he is going to be 
>>president in a few short days for 4 whole years at least.  Can ya dig it!
>>4 very lonnnnnnnnnnnng years.
>
>you sure have got that right.
>
>> And if he is half way competent, and there is no reason to suspect not,
>
>in fact, there is EVERY indication that he will be just that.
>half way competent.
>
>>
>>
>>Have you thought about immigrating?
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>say what? immigrating? i think that the poster is already here.
>>
>>
>>Pope charles
>>
>>--
>
>
>
>--
>David Leung-tak
>"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
>"A day without sun is night."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Another pearl of wisdom from our friends at Stanford. :)
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:02:26 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: skibum.meaddata.com

In article <1993Jan8.185341.14427@b30.ingr.com>, dash@skyy.b30.ingr.com (new user) writes:
|> Look.  If you get taxpayer money in the form of vouchers accepted by
|> private (religious) schools, then they should also abide by government 
|> (and supreme court decisions) regarding school prayer. Don't like them
|> apples, then don't accept vouchers.....

Funny that you should accept government blackmail and extortion as a given.
You must be wondering where the 55 mph speed limit went.

What I just loooooove about this school issue is the way that it's going to
have to solve itself.  The quality of public education is approaching sewer
levels, no matter how much money is thrown at it, and parents know it.  The
worse it gets, the more parents pull their kids out into private schools and
then (along with people who don't have kids anyway) start voting down local
school levies, creating a snowball effect.  No government can afford to fight
for very long against market forces, which I'm sure is terribly frustrating
for all you meddling liberals.  Gotta love it.

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250
From: dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: 8 Jan 93 08:56:27 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <C0J7zq.J7G@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com 
(mike myke schwartz) writes:
> 
> It sickened and withered when the Democratic Fascist Party of America
> gained enough power to use it's army of secret police and government
> agencies to maintain its power.  They stand in the way of the
> country's best interests to maintain its power.  Their clear desire is
> to control all three branches of our government.
>

What a conspiracy theorist! The Democrats have an "army of secret 
police"? You can't honestly think this. Isn't the goal of the Repub-
lican party also to "control all three branches of government"?

-Scott
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
%  PARENTAL WARNING:  Even though you are most probably one of the majority,  &
&  a single-parent household leader with little responsibility, we feel the   %
%  need to warn you so that in case you decide to supervise your delinquent   &
&  brats, you will know that we, conservative Christian moralist freaks, have %
%  determined with our infinite mental powers that the material in this       &
&  post is not only obscene, lewd, lascivious, provocative, ambitious,        %
%  cynical, destructive, stimulating, and creative, but it is also (we have   &
&  real proof somewhere) obviously a missive straight from Satan, commanding  %
%  Amerika's youth to turn to communism, sodomy, Satanism, and, of course,    &
&  drugs and voting Libertarian.                                              %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11966 talk.politics.misc:66758
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:04:33 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1993Jan7.160030.1478@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>Bush's own budget estimates show annual deficits >$300 Billion thru 1998.

 Thats was the ceiling I was refering to.

>"Keynes large centralist corporations"?  What are you talking about?

 Centralist control. I have probably been reading to much lately, no doubt.
 Large 'facist' corporations married to government which are easily controlled
in a keynesian type fashion. The Phillips curve needed them to operate.

>There was a massive increase in the Social Security tax to make it "solvent".

 Remember when those tricky reaganites combined social security revenues 
with general tax revenues in an attempt to hide the deficit. Those were 
deficit spenders hiding behind the Medias attack on the populist Reagan.
Now which revenue increase offset which deficit spending increase ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: On campus PC requires Anon postings (fwd)
Date: 12 Jan 93 15:27:53 GMT
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy

In article <1993Jan11.225556.13772@fuug.fi> an5411@anon.penet.fi writes:
>
>I have decided to start posting through an anon source because
>of speach codes at the university at which I am employed.  A friend,
>who happens to be a constiutional lawyer, suggested that I was in voilation
>of university speech codes after reading several postings.
>
don't worry. there's not one chance in a billion that you could be
convicted for expressing your 1st ammendment rights. unconstitutional
rules like that must be fought. we have them here at ucla and i ignore
them and noone has even tried to do anything to me. if they did it would
likely inconvinience me a lot, but i would win hands down and clear
cut.
From: woodard@figment.tmc.edu (Chris Woodard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 6 Jan 93 02:59:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of South Florida, Department of Computer Science and Engineering


How do you know that you have no gay friends?  Have you asked them all?  And
when they answered, were they telling the truth?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: What Liberals have done to us already, not what they'll do later.
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 15:01:06 PST

In <1993Jan8.211531.6461@csus.edu>, Thoughtcrime Convict #12273-101 writes:


>Okay, whether you liberals are humor-impaired or not, this is not the
>humor section anymore. This isn't a prediction about how badly you are
>going to mess America up in the next 4 years. It's all about how badly
>you have messed it up in the years until now. This article is going to
>illustrate the principle that fact is wierder than fiction (and often
>more frightening).

>And it's a warning that we have unleashed more of the same for the
>next 4 years, only this time, we are on a ride to hell with no brakes,
>no speed limits, and no rest stops for the next 1460 days (plus 1 day
>in leap year '96). We are going to have to hold it in for 4 years, and
>then that 57% of Americans that voted against Clinton in '92, will
>pick up the other 43% and vote for Kemp in '96.

> (Much divisive {and sometimes accurate} drivel deleted)

As a Kemp supporter myself, I'd like to state that I know of very few Kemp
supporters who has the attitude of this one.  Most Kemp supporters are happy,
upbeat people who like Kemp's message of inner city revival and economic
empowerment of the lower classes.  We're talking legitimate economic-based
reforms and incentives for the poor, and of concrete proposals to fix them--
not about empty promises and politics as usual.

I've always been a big Jack Kemp fan.  I've heard him speak many times, and
I've learned to expect a few things from a Jack Kemp speech.

If you listen to a Kemp speech, you'll notice the absence of hate.  You'll
hear almost nothing but positive messages of hope and prosperity.  You won't
hear calls for a religious war or for the dismantling of civil rights law.

You'll hear a desire to balance the budget by growing the economy--not by
raising taxes and drastically slashing social spending.  You'll hear reasoned
examples of how parts of supply-side can work if done right.  You won't hear
the constant bashing of liberals and the welfare state.  You will hear a pro-
life message, but not one which will strongly alienate most people.  Jack Kemp
is a conciliatory man and doesn't seek confrontation on issues.  He'll take a
stand on what he believes, but he won't belittle those who don't agree.  You
will hear an approach designed to raise the lower classes--not lower the other
classes.

In short, Jack Kemp is *nothing* like the writer of the message to which I
reply.  I hope you remember that in 1996.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
 for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 14:09:12 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <9PJZwB9w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>gerberrl@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Richard L. Gerberding) writes:

>date, tho' Ollie and Poindexter slipped the noose due to the help of 
>Conservatives in Congress with their ill advised "immunity".   Experts 
>said that would make it hard to convict and they were right, damn it.
>  But in the end, Walsh caught Weinberger RED HANDED.  The bastard stated 
>under oath more than once he did not have notes, while he indeed did.

(Sharp intake of breath as we realize the magnitude of the crime) Weinberger 
said he did not have notes!! And he did!!  String him up!!  But wait, didn't 
Clinton say on national TV that he would push for a middle class tax cut, 
would halve the deficit in four years, and would not raise taxes on the middle
class?  How come lying to Congress is so heinous but lying to the American people
isn't?  

>
>Pope Charles      No Slack for this bunch of fools.
>Lawrence Walsh, the only true hero so far in this whole sorry mess.
>
>--
>popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
>Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
>1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis


===============================================================================

William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"Thanksgiving Day.  In the days of our  founders, they  were  willing to give
 thanks for mighty little, for mighty little was all they expected.  But now,
 neither government nor  nature  can  give  enough but what we think it's too
 little.  Those old boys  in  the fall of the year, if they could gather in a
 few pumpkins, potatoes and some corn for the winter, they were in a thanking
 mood.  If we can't gather in a new  Buick, a  new  radio, a  tuxedo and some 
 government relief, why, we feel that the world is against us."

												Will Rogers

===============================================================================
From: pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slick Willie: Promises #2, #3 broken
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 20:09:02 PST
Organization: The Missing Link BBS, Santa Maria, CA  805-925-1129

dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
> 
> So that's three down, and there's still 12 days 'till inaguration day.
> Anybody care to wager how many promises are broken by Jan. 20?

Lets not be too hasty...  we shouldn't count the eggs before they
hatch...  though I will agree... it is much more interesting than
some of the garbage these days in the media...

I think I'll wait until January 20th at 12 noon, at least...  of course
after that, close attention to April 29th (Slick Willies 100th day) 
should be afforded.

> 
> "I will not raise taxes on the middle class"  (#1)
> "I will help the forgotten middle class"      (#2)
> "I will halve the deficit in four years"      (#3)
> 
>        --   Slick Willie, Nov. 1992
> 


--
pbowden@missing.kludge.com  (Pete Bowden)
The Missing Link BBS, Santa Maria, CA  805-925-1129
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 02:34:11 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

beers@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jim Beers) writes:

> In article <0JoBwB4w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (Wi
> >mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
> >
> >
> >If anything, the first amendment has definitely been stepped on by our 
> >politicians in the last half century.  Putting in 'God we trust" on our 
> >dollars....
> >
> >We need to go back to following the Constitution, not subverting it for 
> >the benifit of right winged evangelicals and the like.
> >
> >popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
> 
> Perhaps we should all, (as a protest) cross this line off our dollars.
> I think it would get a lot of attention if people saw a black line 
> accross there dollar bills.
> 


Matthew 5:33
  Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou 
shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thy oaths;
  But I (Jesus Christ) say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, 
for it is God's footstool;
  Nor by by the earth for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for 
it is a city of the Great King.
  Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst make one hair 
white or black.
But let your communication be Yea, Yea, Nay nay:  for whatsoever is more 
than these cometh of evil.

Since in "God We Trust" is in essence a religous oath, and since such 
oaths are forbidden by Jesus Christ himself, this motto should be emoved 
from our coinage and money.   And the pledge of allegience, with it's 
inserted "Under God" obviously also falls under Jesus' explicit ban on 
religous oaths utilizing the name of God.

I shall expect you hard core Christians to prove your love for Jesus by 
leading the charge on this.



Jesus said so.
The Bible proves it. 
That settles it.

And remember this next time you are sworn in as a juror in court and they 
try to make you swear on a Bible.


Pope Charles     Subgenius Pope Of Houston.  Sheesh, doesn't anybody 
actually read this here book!?  They're ALL going to burn in Hell.

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh