HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:50:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.212945.8032@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>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.
>
>Oh,well, you'll miss some good literature :)  Int's just science fiction--
one of the stories I was inspired by was written by Ray Bradbury.

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:29:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon


What's really absurd about Booth's "novel idea" is that he doesn't
realize that O.R. members have, in fact, injured people already.
He seems to think that violence against women entering health
care facilities and those who would assist them is merely a
fantasy of his.  He also ignores the fact that police officers
have refused to arrest O.R. members in a few cases, and that
some O.R. members are former or current law enforcement officers.

Do you have any original ideas, Booth?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:44:56 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
->87% of americans have comprehensive health 
->care plans. 

can you support this statement?


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Reasonable men may differ: Capital Gains Tax
Originator: news@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:35:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

I'm curious as to the Democrats opposing a cut in the capital gains tax.
Being conservative, I support the cut. I have *never* received a substantive
answer why it shouldn't be cut. Here's what I know of both sides:

CONSERVATIVE
------------
Republicans support cutting the capital gains tax. They claim it will
help the economy because:
At this time, the capital gains tax and the top bracket for personal
income tax are at about the same level. In order to have a strong
economy, we need to stimulate investment. The capital gains tax is
what investors pay on their dividends. If this is at the same level the
personal income tax is at, potential investors are more likely to invest
in government bonds and other safe places rather than put their money
at risk.

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.

The capital gains tax is raised when the economy gets overheated -- this is
a Good Thing. But democrats are often resistant to lowering it when it has
an excellent track record of doing exactly what the Republicans are
claiming it will do.


LIBERAL
-------

We can't lower the capital gains tax, because that would help the rich.

That is the *only* argument I've heard. Come on, Demos, is there a
*better* reason?

I wrote my Congressman, Dave McCurdy (D-OK), encouraging him to support
the bill to lower the tax. He promptly wrote me back, telling me he would
vote against the move. Here is the main paragraph from his letter:

	   I voted against the capital gains cut proposed by the Bush
	Administration during the last Congress, primarily because it
	would have increased the federal deficit over five years by
	$21 billion. While some middle income taxpayers might have
	benefited, by far the greatest benefits would have gone to the
	wealthiest among us. At a time when the deficit is threatening
	to undermine our whole economic system, not only for us but for
	our children, I did not believe it was appropriate to cut taxes
	in this way.

He then goes on about supporting tax cuts for middle income Americans,
and talks some more about the deficit.

I wrote him back, asking him to explain why he opposed the cut if that
has a good track record of stimulating the economy. I invited him to
supply me with figures of his own.

I never heard back.

So... are there any *good* explanations?

							- greg
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Bush will lose in November
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:57:21 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> In article <1992Oct5.153432.1@oread.cc.ukans.edu> jdeke@oread.cc.ukans.edu (John Deke) writes:
> 
> >     Sadly, I just don't see how we can reasonably expect the American public
> >to show any intelligence and vote against this governor from Arkansas.
> 
> 	In short, Clinton will win because AMERICANS ARE MORONS. Sad, but
> true, the American public is simply too stupid to elect their own leaders,
> it's a wonder that most of them can tie their shoes without help from 
> someone with a brain (presumably a conservative).
> 
> 	I've been waiting for this, and I expect that there will be a lot more
> of it as Bush goes further into the tank. I don't really expect dittoheads
> to go for the idea that the man they chose to represent the republican party
> is less desireable then Bill Clinton to the American people. After all, we 
> all know that americans are fundamentally conservative.
> 

Well, I for one don't think Bush is/was the best qualified Republican
either in 1988 OR now. And I've had damned little to do with choosing
Bush; let's face it, even great men make mistakes, and George Bush was
Reagan's worst mistake. I may in fact vote for Bush this year for the same
reason I voted for him last time; he's slightly less unqualified than his
opponent. But I don't have to LIKE it, and I DON'T.

AND DON'T CALL BUSH A CONSERVATIVE! He's no such thing, and gives REAL
conservatives a bad name. 


> 	"Bush wasn't our real choice, we really wanted XXX"
> 
> 	"Bush was too liberal - he alienated conservatives"
> 

These two "excuses" are sure right on the money; Jack Kemp's name comes to
mind. 


> -- 
>                                Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
>   "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
>   and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992

Y'see, even Reagan has figured it out; Bush was a MISTAKE.

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7315 alt.activism.d:3848 talk.abortion:42428
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:50:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1080@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.200919.24784@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
>kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
>|In article <1063@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>|>The same thinking applies to the Democrats who support abortion on demand
>|>and government funding of abortion.  On this issue the Democratic party is
>|>also a fringe group.
>|
>|I don't think this statement is correct. As far as I know, the Democrats
>|support the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe v. Wade into
>|federal law.  Roe v. Wade allows restriction of abortion during the third
>|trimester of pregnancy.  That doesn't qualify as "abortion on demand," at
>|least not after fetal viability.
>
>To be perfectly honest, I don't know what the Democratic platform says (I
>haven't gotten my copy yet), but both Clinton and Gore have come out for
>government funding of abortion with no restrictions.  This does qualify as
>"abortion on demand".

I don't know about Gore, but I'm fairly certain that Clinton supports
some restrictions on abortion, parental notification laws at least.

Besides, unrestricted government funding isn't the same thing as
unrestricted abortion on demand.  If the abortion isn't allowable
under FOCA or Roe v. Wade, presumably they don't support govt. funding
of it.  Perhaps they support "unrestricted" funding for only the
approved sorts of abortions.  But I'd need more specifics.

>--
>orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
>uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner



-- 
   +==========================+============================================+
   |Kristy Patterson          |"Jack's favorite author is the man who wrote|
   |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu |'Pull tab to open.'"      -Jewel of the Nile|
   +==========================+============================================+
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Originator: news@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:50:39 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <1992Oct15.154228.12285@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>>lied about his Senate voting record,
>
>MISLEADING: The only time he voted for the CBI was when it was part of a
>much larger trade bill whose importance overrode Gore's opposition to the
>CBI.

So? It's still dangerous. Remember, that's *exactly* how Bush broke his
"Read My Lips" pledge. But that didn't get him off the hook.

							- greg
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7467 talk.politics.misc:51935 alt.politics.elections:16942 alt.politics.bush:9265 alt.politics.clinton:10565
From: yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Comparing Rush and Bob Grant.
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:44:11 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <nate.695@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>
>    Hmmm. I would certainly agree that Bob Grant is less pompous, but I 
>would hardly call him entertaining. At least on the occasions I've heard 
>him on Rush's show I found Grant to be abrasive, abusive and generally 
>impolite; practically a conservative Larry King.
>
Aw com'on.  To say Bob is not as entertaining as Rush is bad enough of
an insult.  But to compare him to Larry King is going too far.  
Larry King is the utimate middle-of-the-road, don't-step-on-anyone's-toes
announcer I have ever seen.  About all Bob Grant would probably
want that Larry King has is his bank account and his nationwide
show.

This is just my opinion, but I think Bob Grant would do well on
a nationwide show. 

Is it not true that Bob has influenced a number of influenced radio talk
show host?

I agree with the poster that said that Rush seems to like to hear himself
talk and Bob lets some of his guests talk.  
I remember Rush saying that the best questions on his show are submitted
by Rush.  


-- 
--
 Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
 From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7446 alt.politics.bush:9207 alt.politics.clinton:10498 alt.politics.elections:16854 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6901 talk.politics.misc:51846
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More deception from your hero, not mine
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:28:05 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

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...

Set up by the Bipartisan Debate Commission, which includes, among other
people, former president Gerald Ford, a leading Republican.  Hardly unheard-of.
Clinton stated many times that he would accept any format set by the
commission, which is funded by the General Election Fund, a fund to which any
American can donate by checking a box on their tax-return and enclosing the
correct additional amount.  As for why Clinton is the Democratic candidate,
well he is the candidate, and he has a great deal of support, and he is
LEADING in the polls by a significant margin.  The candidates are considered
equals in the election, and the people decide.  Clinton's stand was
entirely proper.  Bush is pathetic for not showing up for the first debate.
In fact, he didn't want to debate at all.  He's decided that's it't the only
chance he has left, so he's doing it.  But he's still pathetic.  (And that's
the least unflattering adjective that comes to my mine when I think of
George "Poison-Mouth" Herbert "Sell-Out-My-Values-For-Politics" Walker
"Help-Out-My-Rich-Friends-No-Matter-What-The-Cost-To-Society" Bush.
Three More Months!

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7067 alt.activism.d:3743 alt.politics.elections:16057 alt.politics.bush:8585 alt.politics.clinton:9648 talk.politics.misc:50819 talk.abortion:41898
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
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: 11 Oct 92 01:14:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>>"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
>>-- Ronald Reagan
>
>Thanks for the support.   I thought for a minute the liberals had taken over
>the net.

Well, since net users are generally better educated and more
intelligent, it only seems like the liberals have taken over.

:-)

-- 
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: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:31:21 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.031044.24585@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.022254.26901@muddcs.claremont.edu> weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct14.165055.8575@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>> >
>> >And with the current economy, a product of that highly
>> >intelligent conservative government we have, the one that
>> 	Why who has the most control over our economy? It's congress isn't it?
>> Isn't congress mostly democrat? Now that I've corrected that little 
>> misconception of yours, you can replace 'conservative' with 'liberal' and you
>> will be insulting the democrats. That would suggest you certainly shouldn't
>> vote for a democrat for president. 
>> 	Just something I noticed.
>
>William, old darling, why is it that when the economy was
>bad the highly popular former president who once played
>supporting actor to a monkey blamed it on the democratic
>president then in office, and then took credit for the
>turnaround in the economy when he came to office, and

When that democratic president was then in office, there was also a 
democratic congress. This is widely quoted as a reason why a democratic
congress and a democratic president are a *REALLY* bad idea. When a
Republican president took office, things improved. Could this be a sign?
The president has some control, but congress has more.

	Something also worthy of discussion which I am willing to entertain
is the thought that nobody is to blame. Free market systems tend to act in
cycles and when too much effort is made to prevent the cycles, the result
is to have things permanently bad rather than cycling between good and bad.

	by the way, I thought it was interesting how you managed to fit so
few thoughts in so many words. Work on being brief.
From: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Summary: Wake Up !
Keywords: It has been happening for years
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:54:56 GMT
Reply-To: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: flyboy.ebay.sun.com

>So - we are not in a recession? I see - well we have little or no
>nflation right? So we must be doing very well right? This is
>ll a myth - the unemployment figures must be faked and we must
>all be fools - come on...


I see this so much, people trying to put the blame for things on someone.
Life is very dynamic.
This country is in a recession.
This country is not in a large recession.
Anyone who would be sitting in the president's seat would be tagged with the
problem, "it's his falt".
I have news for you people, this country will have more, "recessions".
Probably about one every 7 or 8 years.
Go back and check your history.
Certain groups would like you to believe that it is the incumbent's falt but,
that doesn't wash.
Job skill requirements in the working world move to different levels every 7 to
10 years, technology paces this.
Having 94% of this country at work is not a sign of a crumbling US economy.
Sure there are businesses that would use this as an excuse to  dump bodies
but, this a small percentage.
If you were to closely evaluate the bodies who had no jobs, you would find 
that a MAJORITY of those had a history of holding jobs, and the rest were
people who DID NOT WANT TO WORK.
Again, what I see above is a person, probably of good intellegence who has been
seduced by pompous flag waving and a good dose of media Cocaine up the nose.



Al Conte
 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7107 alt.activism.d:3772 talk.abortion:41989
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:21:32 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In  <1071@bug.UUCP>  stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>
> I think abortion is always wrong except to safe the life of
> the mother (if you want to argue that please take it to email).

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.  If you want to force your
opinion on others who hold differing viewpoints, then I think you're
wrong.  And if you want to argue, take it to talk.abortion (which is
where I'm directing followups).

> I was responding to someone who said the Republican Party was a fringe
> group because of (or was it "on") their position on abortion.  I simply
> pointed out that the Democratic Party is a "fringe" group in exactly the
> same sense, and they are.

Nope - the Republican Party platform is anti-abortion, with *no* exceptions
for rape or incest.  This is an extremist, "fringe" position.  The Democratic
Party supports the Freedom of Choice Act and Roe v. Wade, which allows the
states to decide whether or not they want to restrict third-trimester
abortions.  In fact, even though it's ostensibly up to the states, the
reality of the situation is that there is a de facto *ban* on third-trimester
abortions in the U.S. for other than serious health reasons.  This is because
there are only 3 doctors in the country who perform third-tri abortions, and
that's the only reason they'll do it.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
  "A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders"
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6934 alt.activism.d:3672 alt.politics.elections:15764 alt.politics.bush:8328 alt.politics.clinton:9298 talk.politics.misc:50460 talk.abortion:41519
From: bboerner@novdpd.uucp (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush gets nailed on Columbus
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:53:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

Rush got nailed this afternoon.

He had been railing on for a while about the Columbus issue when he
took a call after a break from a young woman who read from what she
claimed what Columbus' diary, completely demolishing Rush's argument.

Rush's response was 1) what were the sources for this diary?  She
responded that it was quoted in a magazine and two different books so
he falls back to 2) well, this couldn't be true because it was too
close to what the anti-Columbus' folks had been claiming all along and
if it was true the dominant media would have picked it up by now
(perhaps the evidence supported the claims because they were based on
similar evidence?).  I found this interesting because a) if you find
evidence to support your arguments against Rush then it's wrong because
it supports you, and b) the argument that evidence in support of
"liberal" causes is to be rejected if the "liberal" media does not pick
it up completely ignores the possibility that the media ISN'T
necessarily liberal.

After this brilliant line of reasoning was announced, Rush cuts to a
another break which was oh, about 3-4 minutes after the break he just
came back from.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Is Rush Trying to Get Bush Defeated?  (God I hope so)
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:49:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

Rush has been trying to point out to people that some number (perhaps a
majority) of Clinton supporters support him not because of what he'll
do when he's elected (i.e. issue reasons) but because they're voting
against Bush.  I agree w/Rush this once - that's why I'm voting for
Clinton.

However, what's Rush' reason for doing this?  IMHO, it merely
undermines Bush (not that I mind).  In other words, Rush is pointing
out that people would rather vote for a LIBERAL rather than for Bush -
put another way, people would rather have the devil they DON'T know
over the devil they DO know.  Sounds pretty bad to me.

Maybe there is truth to the idea that Rush is a pinko-liberal
agent :-).

Later,
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