HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: toma@romulus.cray.com (Thomas Arneberg)
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 31 Aug 92 09:04:13 CDT

In article <1992Aug29.020711.2620@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:
>
>I think its time for a new party. I'm fairly libertarian but disagree with
>the libertarian party taking it to an extreme since it would be anarchy. I
>believe in minimal government interference and at this point the democrats
                                                                  ^^^^^^^^^
>are the lesser of the two evils. I have no reason to believe the republicans
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>promise of lower taxs, but I have every reason to believe they will try to
>extend the war on drugs policies to everything the fundy's believe is a
>social problem.  
>
>The party of the drug war and Pat Robertson is not the party of freedom!

"The democrats are the lesser of two evils"? This really surprised me! I'm
somewhat libertarian, too...I can see how the war on drugs is an expensive,
violent failure, etc.

But I think the Demo's pose a far greater threat to individual liberty with
their tax-and-spend policies. The general tendency of the Democratic party
is to think that Big Brother government is the answer to all our problems.

Of course, maybe it's not really tax-and-spend if you call it "INVESTING in
America" and "making the wealty pay their fair share"...

  - Tom A.
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
;-) I'd rather be ____  Thomas R. Arneberg   | Inet: toma@cray.com
:-) singing in a |____| Senior IC Design Eng.| UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!toma
:-) Barbershop  _|   _| Cray Research, Inc.  | CLAIM TO FAME: Loni Anderson 
:-) Quartet!   (_)  (_) Chippewa Falls, Wisc.|   went to my high school 
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slavery and the Civil War (was Re: Quayle on abortion)
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:47:37 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug26.153340.16381@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:

>Thank you, Nathan, for supplying the concrete example I lacked.
>What we had then was a VOTE by the southern states to secede.  Did it
>work?  Did it settle the issue, Steve?

 I knew what Nathan stated all along. You are equating voting with war.
The southern states wanted to secede from the Union because they probably
felt that they were losing power to a huge Federal Big Government. They
lacked a proportional Representation via a vote. This was the first in-
dividualist revolution against the federal socialist. If the southern
states had been empowered and could control what mandates where forced
down their throats from the feds, they might have agreed to stay in the
union. The Big Government Socialists used the divisive issue of slavery
to justify killing people via a war. The underlying issue wasnt slavery, it
was empowerment. If you dont give people empowerment, they will eventually
try to revolt. This is what happened in the former Soviet Union. It could
happen here in the future if we dont stop the growth of federalistic 
socialists empowerment.
 ps - I would have voted that slavery be abolished.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 8/31/92
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: world,usa,na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:23:28 GMT

davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli) writes:

>>In article <1992Sep1.123404.26114@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>>As George Will pointed out on "David Brinkley", if increasing
>>>the size of government revenues is the definition of "raising taxes",
>>>then by the same standard the capital gains tax cut, which Bush claims 
>>>will increase revenues, is "raising taxes".

While I think I already know the answer to this one, could someone please
tell me if the above explains how the Clinton people could possibly have
claimed that Reagan signed the "largest tax increase in history?"

If so, then the Clinton people have inadvertently paid the greatest
complement possible to conservatives...that cutting tax rates across the
board actually resulted in a net revenue increase, and that "supply-side"
economics worked!

_ACF
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 8/31/92
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: world,usa,na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 15:45:47 GMT

In article <1878@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

|>  I watched this show to. Could some enlightened soul please explain to me how
|> increasing the revenues from a government run monopoloy (gambling in arkansas)
|> can be equated with stimulating private sector economic growth with capital
|> gains tax cuts. George Will did not explain his comedic conclusions.

	Dog racing is not a government owned monopoly, it is a private concern
that is taxed by the government. The governer made two changes to the rules,
he lowered the percentage of the governments take by 1% (ie: reduced the tax)
but expanded the number of hours the tracks were allowed to operate 
(ie: reduced the restrictions). The net result was an increase in state
revenue from increased track profits.

	Sounds a whole bunch like capital gans cuts to me.

	As an aside, I notice that Clinton is also in favor of a capital
gains cut, for long term gains only. Since congress has already shown a 
willingness to pass such legislation, maybe we'll see a tax increase via
capital gains after all.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 8/31/92
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: world,usa,na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:03:20 GMT

In article <1891@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

|>					 Taxation and regula-
|> tion is theft. They must justify the crime, not justify the sentence.

	You think like this and your a bush supporter? Your either confused
or your lying. From the radical libertarian perspective, Bush and Clinton
should be almost identical.

	Bush not only raised taxes and presided over a masive increase in
goverenment regulation, but he gave us a set of law that allow the government
to confiscate property simply by proving that the property was involved
in a crime (drug kingpins and all that). with 97% of the currency in
circulation containing tracable amounts of cocaine, he in effect said that
the government could confiscate *any* large amount of cash, without due
process of any kind.

	furthurmore, Race tracks are regulated because gambling is *sinful* 
and *immoral* - a bush presidency would (and has) *increase* this kind of
regulation, not decrease it.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: toma@romulus.cray.com (Thomas Arneberg)
Subject: Re: Summary Thu 8/20/92
Keywords: Unofficial Rush Limbaugh Rebuttal
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 28 Aug 92 10:47:10 CDT

In article <1992Aug27.185253.6300@sdc.com> norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman) writes:
>
>Rush saying this is consistent with his deification of the rich, but he should
>remeber that Our Saviour said that it is easier for a rich man to pass through
>the eye of an needle than to enter the kindom of heaven.
>
>Yours in Xt.,
>
>Norm

Sorry, but I can't let that one go...I don't want to go too far on a 
theological tangent, but that quote is incomplete without the followup.

I don't have a Bible in front of me, but if memory serves me correctly,
when Jesus said that about how hard it is for a rich man to get into
heaven, his disciples were suprised and said, "How then can anyone get into
heaven?", to which Jesus answered, "With God, all things are possible."

There is nothing inherently wrong with creating wealth (as long as your
priorities are in order). It's how you USE that wealth that is important.

  - Tom A.
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
;-) I'd rather be ____  Thomas R. Arneberg   | Inet: toma@cray.com
:-) singing in a |____| Senior IC Design Eng.| UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!toma
:-) Barbershop  _|   _| Cray Research, Inc.  | CLAIM TO FAME: Loni Anderson 
:-) Quartet!   (_)  (_) Chippewa Falls, Wisc.|   went to my high school 
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:37:11 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug28.160915.9994@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>> The slaves may be free because the majority decided they should be. The 
>>slavery issue may have just been one of the first divisive issues used by
>>socialists.
>
>Great, now Lincoln and the Republican party are a socialist offshoot
>of the Whigs.

 Sorry for the sloppy editing. I should have formed this sentence into a
question because I lack a complete understanding of the history of the
country at that time. I did say MAY though.
 Lincolns primary concern was to keep the union together. He also did not 
condone slavery. The end result was war and the union held together.
What worries me today is the civil war or civil riots which seem to be
occuring with greater frequency. We witnessed the Los Angeles Riots and we
also see weekly demonstrations at abortion clinics.
 If Lincoln had accepted the Missouri ? Compromise, war would have been pre-
vented. The question is how much longer would slavery have lasted in the south.
What if slavery was later abandoned by the southern states say 10 or 20 years
after the compromise. My knowledge of the history of the event is weak, so
I am basically asking questions. Would a compromise on the divisive social
issues of today, help keep the country together without civil war? We could 
hold national votes on the issues every 4 years or so to guage the voters 
changing positions. How long would it have taken the majority of the people
of the south to see the injustice which slavery caused ? How long would it
have taken them to grant equal rights to all humans ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: more predictions
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:16:41 CDT


In article <1992Aug27.223531.20419@midway.uchicago.edu>, wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:
> In article <1992Aug26.191128.22600@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> >In article <37285@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, cote@cs.ucsd.edu (Brad Cote) writes:
> >
> >|> Prediction - If slick willy wins, runaway deficit spending will
> >|> crush growth, unemployment will skyrocket, and inflation will
> >|> rise to double digits. The reasons: the deficit will push up
> >|> interest rates, eliminating funds needed for REAL (not pork
> >|> barrel) investment in industry. His health care policy will
> >|> require employers to cut back on workers in order to pay the
> >|> increased per employee costs. [and more, and more ... deleted]
> >
> >	In 1988, people said that if I voted for Dukakis, deficit spending
> >would crush growth, unemployement would rise, the economy would stagnate,
> >the national debt would skyrocket, etc.
> >
> >	Well, what do you know, I voted for Dukakis, and look what happened.
> 
> 	And I suppose you are also one of the people who voted for the
> congress.

I, like Alex, voted for Dukakis.  Both people I voted for Congress lost.

Republican Senator Dave Durenberger was re-elect, has since been sensured by 
the Senate for improper financial dealings, and is now being investigated 
by a Federal grand jury for criminal charges in the same financial dealings.  

Republican Congressman Bill Frenzel was re-elected, but chose not to run in
1990.  He still workes in Washington, at a political "think tank".

-- 
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
From: toma@romulus.cray.com (Thomas Arneberg)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh Newsletter Information/Phone Numbers
Keywords: Newsletter,Rush,Limbaugh,EIB
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 26 Aug 92 08:54:00 CDT

In article <Aug.26.00.00.13.1992.27400@andromeda.rutgers.edu> detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>
>I heard today while listening to the program Rush's newsletter is
>coming out soon.
>
>Twelve monthly issues will cost $29.00 a year, the first due out in
>late September.
>-- 
>David De Trolio - (detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)

Would you (and other subscribers) consider posting a review of the
newsletter after you get it?

I like listening to Rush, but I am uncertain whether his appeal can be
translated to the printed word. Also, there are other print resources
already out there (_American Spectator_, _Conservative Chronicle_, etc.). 
I wonder how Rush's newsletter will compare to them?

Thanks,
  - Tom A.
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
;-) I'd rather be ____  Thomas R. Arneberg   | Inet: toma@cray.com
:-) singing in a |____| Senior IC Design Eng.| UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!toma
:-) Barbershop  _|   _| Cray Research, Inc.  | CLAIM TO FAME: Loni Anderson 
:-) Quartet!   (_)  (_) Chippewa Falls, Wisc.|   went to my high school 
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Oregon Health Care Plan (was Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7%)
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:06:21 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <1992Aug26.134510.12302@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.140155.28182@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>>
>>I do not want doctors to be goverment employees.  Yikes!  In fact, I believe
>>many doctors deserve those high salaries.  What I would like is a single
>>payer form of health insurance, providing a minimum level of medical care
>>for everyone.  Individuals and companies would then purchase higher levels of
>>of care.  The reason I have is that health insurance can tie you to a company.
>>I had a co-worker who had a very bad back.  This company was having problems
>>and people were getting laid off, the kind where you want to get out as soon
>>as possible.  However, even though she had opportunities to move, she couldn't
>>because the new insurance would not pay for her pre-existing condition for
>>at least a year.
>>
>>To go along with this, we need a system like the one proposed in Oregon,
>>where we only pay for procedures that are cost effective in terms of money
>>spent vs. health added.  We pay for as many as we can.  It's too bad Bush
>>wouldn't even give it a chance.  Talk about statism.
>>
>Jim, as I understand the Oregon plan, you are right.  This would have been a
>gold mine for Bush.  Just imagine, each state taking care of its own
>citizens.  The only problem is that Oregon wanted the Feds to fork over the
>Federal Medical funds gauranteed to them.  I can understand Bush's
>apprehension, but at least they could have taken the intitiative:
>
>	Oregon's plan is a giant step in the right direction.
>
>	Figure out a way to transfer the fed tax money to the states without
>the feds eternally subsidizing national health care.  There could be an
>exchange in tax code such as 10% lower federally so the states could raise
>taxes to pay for their minimum coverage, but I don't think that would be
>politically feasible.
>
>	Bush's worry is that even if the feds write into law that only a
>certain % of each state's minimum coverage will be provided by the feds
>(25%?), congress is likely to raise the % and slowly regulate the states.

Where do you get this information?  Bush vetoed the plan because, he said,
it conflicted with the new Americans with Disabilities Act.  Oregon supporters
of the plan have apparently been meeting with Bush advisors today to work
out some compromise on whatever clauses Bush objects to.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman)
Subject: Re: Summary Thu 8/20/92
Keywords: Unofficial Rush Limbaugh Rebuttal
Organization: Systems Development Corporation
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:52:53 GMT

>
>o       Rush says that many people seem to think that the rich
>are evil hedonists who have cheated or inherited their wealth.
>This is simply not true with the rich, nor is it true that Rush
>is just wasting his time in Houston. He, along with many others,
>are working hard while in Houston, just like the rich work hard
>to get their wealth in the first place.
>
Not to disparage the many rich and well-off people who have worked hard
for their money, but most of the super rich have made their money the old 
fashioned way - they inherited it!  An examination of the pinko rag Forbes
400 list shows that most on that list have indeed inherited their lucre.

Rush saying this is consistent with his deification of the rich, but he should
remeber that Our Saviour said that it is easier for a rich man to pass through
the eye of an needle than to enter the kindom of heaven.

Yours in Xt.,

Norm
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slavery and the Civil War (was Re: Quayle on abortion)
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:49:56 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Aug26.153340.16381@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
> In article <nate.511@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> >cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
> >
> >>celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
> >>> The slaves may be free because the majority decided they should be. The
> >>>slavery issue may have just been one of the first divisive issues used by
> >>>socialists. The reason slaves were kept was that the government decided
> >>>not to give them rights. Maybe a vote would have saved thousands of lives.
> >
> >>Are you serious?  Do you *really* think a vote could have prevented the
> >>Civil War?  If thousands of people were willing to die over the issue,
> >>what on earth makes you think they'd have listened to a vote?
> >
> >    I personally don't think a vote over slavery would have prevented
> >the American civil war because freedom for slaves wasn't the reason that
> >the war started in the first place. The actual outbreak of hostilities
> >was caused by the secession of the southern states. Some of the combatants
> >in the war didn't have particularly strong feelings about slavery one way
> >or the other.
> >
>
> Thank you, Nathan, for supplying the concrete example I lacked.
>
> What we had then was a VOTE by the southern states to secede.  Did it
> work?  Did it settle the issue, Steve?

The southern states didn't exactly vote in congress to seceed.  No way did
the people of New York vote to have Virginia seceed.  No way did the slaves
vote in Virginia to have Virginia seceed, either :)

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...Dale Cook    "Quayle doesn't inhale (which explains a LOT)."
>                    ---William Hsu
> The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:  Clinton, draft dodger.  YUP!
Date: 4 Sep 92 21:26:05 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep3.220901.22041@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:

>Comparing an intellectual with antiwar sentiment to a rich kid
>chickenhawk is both insulting and unfair to Clinton.

 You shouldnt compare a person who has financed his entire life through
taxing the common people with a man who has worked hard his entire life
in the private sector. He received no inheritance from his grandfather
and only has stock from his mother.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 22:55:39 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.185900.6768@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> ......they stopped being the Party of Ronald
> Reagan and started being the party of Jerry Falwell, they'll talk endlessly
> about liberal conspiricies and political corruption. Blame the commies,
> blame the fags, blame the atheists, never consider that moral majority
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and the christian coalition don't really represent this country. What
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> can I say, I'm bored of it already.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> -- 
>                                Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
> The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
> encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
> witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
> 
> 

Oh oh, this is scary.  Alex Crain and I agree on something.

Don Palmrose





========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh