HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Taxing the Rich (was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:58:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <LARRY.92Sep29171948@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>Apparently the very concept of the rich paying ANY taxes really pisses
>some people off.

What ticks us off is the idea that raising taxes on the rich is a painless way
to solve our budget problems.  This is how it goes:

1993: President Clinton becomes the first candidtate in history to keep a
campaign promise and signs a tax bill raising taxes on incomes above $200,000
and leaving the rest untouched. He predicts that this tax will bring 20 billion
dollars into the federal treasury.  In another amazing display of character he
promises to spend this money on his new Putting People First program, which he
predicts will cost 20 billion dollars.

1994: President Clinton reports that the "tax the rich" bill brought in only
15 billion dollars, not the 20 billion that they expected.  Also the Putting
People First program actually cost 30 billion, instead of 20 billion.  As a
result, the deficit has increased by 15 billion dollars.  To reduce this he is
asking the Democratic Congress for a general tax increase.  Congress rushes to
comply increasing the taxes on everybody and, in business as usual, increases
spending even more since it's an election year.  

And so it goes...


>
>L.
>"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
> I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
> Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
> (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
>Revered, now I live on. O did I do no evil, I wonder ever.


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

===============================================================================
"If an aging America ever begins to lose its short-term memory, it will really
 be in trouble - because that's the only kind of memory this country seems to
 have.  There's a perpetual tendency to believe that whatever is going on at
 this particular moment is absolutely unique in human history, but will,
 paradoxically, continue now into the indefinite future.  Both assumptions are
 certain to be wrong, but meanwhile they have sent a passel of chickens
 scuttling hysterically around the U.S. barnyard."
  
                                                  Louis Rukeyser - 1992

===============================================================================
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Ultraconservatism in the US today
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:57:41 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <BvIzt7.I24@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> timm@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Timm Knoerzer) writes:
>history.  It is high time that the more liberal front is taken seriously and 
>that cooperation, compromising and communication are essential components for 
>effective change.  These ideals are not represented by the conservative front 
>and, thus, renders these individuals moot.
>
>A concerned semi-liberal American

It is well and good to be concerned.  It is the liberal front which is 
capitulating individual rights and trading them in for group rights 
defined by the government.  The conservatives are interested in smaller
government but just enough to protect individual rights.  The liberals
have concocted an entire "rights industry" which concentrates power and
the nature of rights in the hands of the government.  

The liberal approach to move economic and social power into the government
is dangerous (IMO).  As Plato wrote in "The Republic", who shall guard
the guardians?  Do you have an answer or are you one of those who believe
in the overall good nature of man?

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: When did human life begin??? Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 07:14:59 GMT

kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:

>In article <1992Sep28.022043.6011@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>>
>>Human life began millions, possibly billions of years ago.  Please subscribe
>>to the newsgroup talk.origins for more details.

>This gets my vote for the stalest, moldiest "joke" on Usenet.

How precious, Darcy.  You do realize that most people would vote for
_you_ as the "stalest, moldiest "joke" on Usenet".

>GET SOME NEW MATERIAL, FER CRISSAKES!!

While I know that you're no friend of Roe v. Wade, I've rarely seen
an anti-choice person so bold as to call one of the legal arguments
in the case a "joke".

>								- Kevin

                 -rocker
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6442 talk.politics.misc:49331
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Ultraconservatism in the US today
Date: 3 Oct 92 18:35:55 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

timm@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Timm Knoerzer) writes:
#I believe that rush represents the ever-growing slant in this country leading 
#us toward greater seperatism and isolationism. The extreme right appears to be 
#growing at an exponential rate, leading to a reprehensible stifling of 
#creativity, freedom, ingenuity, and adaptation. This Calvanistic mentality that
#rush portrays will never contibute to positive progressive change.  
#
#If we buy into his "philosophy", we will continue on our present course and 
#continue to isolate one another in the process.  I hope that we will wake up 
#and realize that he is part of the problem and not part of the solution.  It 
#sincerely frightens me that people like this (rush, Pat Buchanan, Dan Quayle, 
#etc.) are gaining widespread popularity at such a crucial juncture in our 
#history.  It is high time that the more liberal front is taken seriously and 
#that cooperation, compromising and communication are essential components for 
#effective change.  These ideals are not represented by the conservative front 
#and, thus, renders these individuals moot.

Well according to the election polls, I have no clue what the time
constant is with this exponential increase in ultraconservatism, but
that's another story.

Can you also say, Dick Gephardt?

I don't think that Rush is saying what you think he's saying. If he is
then I disagree with him. He is a staunch opponent of protectionist
measures which only encourage the economy to grow inward and
isolationist, which seem to be encouraged by the liberal Democrats. He
pointed out that the Democrats are saying we have to help the nations of
the Third World by sending them more money, but they get into a fit if
we try to bolster their economies so they can be more self-sufficient
and trade with us, bolstering our own economy. He has not told us to
take care of ourselves before we take care of the world, unlike Mr.
Clinton's "Invest in America" or Perot's "America First" slogans. This
is a global economy that we are living in, and to close up shop to take
care of ourselves internally will eventually harm us too.

Please pay attention to what the liberals propose, and don't think
short-term. If NAFTA results in some companies moving to Mexico to set
up factories, fine, but if the move results in a more healthy economy
with whom we can trade, then it becomes better for all. (Oh, and I don't
think that the jobs that will be established in Mexico will be $15/hr
jobs. These will be jobs that Americans won't do because it pays so
little, or their salaries are not worth the effort.)
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5916 talk.abortion:38676
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: 24 Sep 92 20:18:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <tv9n!t-.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>And yes, arbitrary boundaries are bad, but sometimes they're
>necessary.  I've at least tried to justify mine; you're just asserting
>yours.  Could you explain your decision that personhood starts at
>conception, like I've asked above?

Certainly Brian, I look to the scientific experts and follow their 
opinion on this subject.  While it is by no means a consensus, a 
large majority of embryologists agree that human life begins at 
conception.

Ted


-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5996 alt.activism.d:3363 alt.politics.elections:14415 alt.politics.bush:6897 alt.politics.clinton:7458 talk.politics.misc:48185 talk.abortion:38843
From: shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan)
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: 28 Sep 92 14:23:43 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:


>I think instead of "pro-choice" or pro-abortion" we should use a term
>that is more accurate.  The term "pro-infanticide", or more simply,
>"Pro-Murder" is the correct term that should be used, since after all,
>abortion is the outright killing of children.

So you are saying that killing = murder?  By that reasoning, all wars
should be illegal and we should round up soldiers and incarcerate them
for murder, right?

>With that line of reasoning, if abortion is murder, then those doctors
>that perform abortions are therefore murderers.  Going further, if abortion
>is murder, and those that perform it are murderers, and if murder is a
>capital crime, then technically they should face execution-right?? I mean,

And the executioners should then be executed because they too committed
murder, and their executioners should be executed, etc., etc..

The movement is Pro-Choice.  They do not advocate abortions as the 
solutions to unwanted pregnancy.  They advocate the right of a woman
to make this decision for herself, and to ensure that all options
are safe and legal.

There is a concensus in this country, that the deliberate killing of a private
citizen by another private citizen is murder and is wrong.  Therefore, it
is illegal to do so.  There is no such concensus on the issue of abortion.
You can find as many people who think it is okay, as you can find people
who think it is wrong.  Therefore, there is no justification to outlaw it.

If you believe abortion is wrong, don't have one.  That is your private
decision.  My decision is also private and it is also mine.  It is not
a subject for government legislation.


-- 
Susan R. Hagan (shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu) 
Publications Coordinator - User Services
Rutgers University Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: (Abortion liability) Re: I'm surprised!
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 21:12:42 GMT

In <6528@grus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, timothy shimeall writes:

>For those who oppose parental consent in abortions, consider:
>  (a) Who is liable if the father of the aborted child decides to sue?
>  (b) Who must pay medical bills if the abortion damages your daughter
>      and she needs follow-on medical care?
>  (c) Who must pay if Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome requires
>      psychological counselling for your daughter?

YES!  FINALLY someone sees the point I've been making for years.  I have no
major objection to bypassing parental consent IF AND ONLY IF parents of the
girl ARE NO LONGER LIABLE FOR HER ACTIONS!!!!  If she is responsible enough
to make such a major decision, then she is responsible enough to be held
accountable for ALL of her actions.  She is responsible for any crimes she
may later commit--even if under 18.  She is responsible enough to hold a job
and earn a living for her child.  After all, the parents have had no input.  Do
they have a legal responsibility for the baby?  No rights, no responsibilities.

Perhaps we can have a "statement of personal responsibility" for people
under 18?  Then, those girls who are willing to ALWAYS be responsible for
themselves can choose abortion without consulting the parents.  It isn't
perfect, but as long as we hold parents responsible for the actions of those
under 18, I can't deny the parents a right to intervene.

>Abortion _may_ be the least risky of surgical procedures, but it is
>_not_ less risky than a) a non-allergic person taking an aspirin or
>b) getting your ears pierced.  Why do these require parental consent
>and abortion does not?

Ear-piercing isn't a decision that will affect you for life, and it can be
resolved in the girl's favor at some date (when she's 18).  You can't just
retroactively abort a 4-year-old child when you turn 18...

>Answer: Aspirin manufacturers and ear-piercers aren't making megabucks
>and large political gains off of their clients, and so aren't
>concerned that potential clients might choose against using their
>services.

I do get flustered when "pro-choicers" get upset about counseling women
about alternatives to abortion.  I do get tired of these women used as
political footballs.  Dammit, it's a personal decision.  Abort if you must.
Just know that (a) no one else is responsible for you anymore, and (b) don't
ask for government funding.  Making someone opposed to abortion pay for one
is just as wrong (IMHO) as denying an abortion to a woman who seeks one.
Both are government coercion against one's will.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
FLASH!  Card-carrying Libertarian attempts to solve problems in the REAL
WORLD!  Film at 11.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:12:32 GMT

Simon writes:

>You don't like the civilized tone I keep in my postingss??

Then he demonstrates his civility:

>So people should have their fun, and throw responsibilty out the
>window??

Yow!  Where'd THAT come from?

>No wonder I get flamed.

No wonder!

>I can get flamed like the shuttle on reentry, but I'm not backing off.

Be warned that a lot of us already have firm, well-thought-out stands
on the abortion issue; you're just the challenger.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:15:58 GMT

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

> If you are going to argue about words, you ought to at least look
> them up.

Why didn't you?

> A fertilized egg is a child.  A zygote and a fetus are children. 
> Abortion unambiguously kills a child.  Abortion is in most cases a
> woman hiring a doctor to kill her child.  These are verifiable facts.

These are silly assertions, based on a non-standard definition of 'child.'

	child - a young person, esp. between infancy and adolescence

That's a standard definition.  Anything else?

> If you have a problem with this, then you don't just have a problem
> with me, you have a problem with english, with the truth, with reality.

Indeed.

> To say that a fetus is not a child is to redefine the word "child".  If
> this is not done out of ignorance, it is done to blunt the emotional
> impact of the language, because the language itself is biased against
> abortion rights in this case.  Be honest.

Take a heaping helping of your own advice.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6600 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4943
From: mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Keywords: politics as usual
Date: 6 Oct 92 08:32:40 GMT
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.

In article <6480@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>In article <Fek1RB1w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP> popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell) writes:
>>On the other hand.....
>>  "Dan Quayle is 2 pounds lighter than a straw hat."
>>                           -Republican Senator Lowell Weiker
>You lose a lot of credibility quoting the most hated man in Connecticut.
>How a guy can *claim* to have been a republican, when his deomocratic
>replacement is more conservative than he was (as a senator).

deomocratic... ?

Well, anyway, the Kennedy kids love him.   For taxing the constituents
when the vast majority was against it.  Show lots of courage.

-mm-
-- 
Mark E. Mallett  MV Communications, Inc./ PO Box 4963/ Manchester NH/ 03108
Bus. Phone: 603 429 2223    Home: 603 424 8129     BIX: mmallett
Internet: mem@mv.MV.COM  ( uucp: ...{decvax|harvard}!mv!mem )
Looking for news and mail in southern NH / northern MA?  Try MV!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM ()
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Reply-To: burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM ()
Organization: LMSC, Sunnyvale, California 
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 14:07:23 GMT


>I would just like to make a small point...  (I'm not flaming you :)
>
>I object to the term "Pro-Abortion" (thank you for including "Pro-Choice") 
>in a big way.  I don't think *anyone* is "Pro-Abortion."  That
>would be like people saying "Whaaaat?  You're PREGNANT??  Go get an
>abortion NOW!"  Pro-Choicers do *not* think that fetuses *should* be
>aborted.  They think that they do not have the right to force values and
>judgements about whether or not they are carrying a baby or merely fetal
>tissue on to people who may have a difference of opinion.
>
>In a perfect world, there would be no need for this debate, because there
>would be no unwanted pregnancies.  (Wiping out unwanted pregnancies should,
>IMHO, be where most of the effort of both sides should lie ... but I stray 
>from the topic.)
>
>Please do not flame me.  I'm not trying to anger anyone.
>

This is a ridiculous statement/paragraph to write.  Of course at least 98%
of all people who get abortions or support abortion are "Pro-Abortion".  
If they were not, then alternatives would be used.  But for various reasons,
such as laziness, selfishness... those alternatives are not used.  I'm sick
and tired of hearing about "they do not have the right to force values".  In
the mere act of abortion/murder the woman is forcing values onto the would-be
baby.  As was said in another discussion, when having sex those two people
make the decision to live with the possibilities including having a baby.  To
make a distinction between "carrying a baby or merely fetal tissue" is an
intellectual(not very good at that) distinction that ignores the fact that 
it is a life with intellegence and is a human being.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: liuyh@cs.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Royko article: Next Time, Dan, Take Aim At Arnold
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: usa
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:44:21 GMT

In article <92270.003136KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>In article <92269.082808JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> says:
>
>>What kind of crap is this?  Of course the Terminator is presented as a role
>>model for young people in the same way that Rambo was a role model for young
>>people.  Look at the merchandising!  Listen to the popular vernacular! It's
>>a role model that says the best way to solve a problem is to eliminate those
>>who disagree with you.  *Very Republican.*
>
>Do you know a single kid who wants to grow up to be a Terminator?
>If so, the kid needs help.
>
Do the kids want to grow up with a chest of muscle and wear cool leather jacket`
and sun glasses ride a motorcycle, and maybe tossing a shot gun as so protected
by the amendment?  

you tell me.  
>------------
>Kurt Ludwick
>------------
From: jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Date: 2 Oct 92 06:09:44 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Sep30.205242.568@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
)In article <20821@plains.NoDak.edu> jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen) writes:
)>)
)>)Example: When a new stallion takes over a herd, it will often kick the
)>)mares impregnated by the previous stallion until they abort.
)>)
)>)Zebras are another type of animal that will abort their young, under 
)>)similar circumstances.
)>
)>NATURALLY, animals don't abort their young.  Miscarriages are another thing,
)>but we're talking about ABORTION.  Killing of INNOCENT CHILDREN!!!
)
)What do you mean, "NATURALLY, animals don't abort their young"?  I just
)provided an example, FROM NATURE, where animals do abort their young.

Only after the stallion has kicked the mares.  Sure, it might be 'in nature',
but there is an outside force doing the abortion for the mare.

Ok ... Nature doesn't agree with abortion.   WHAT??? you might ask.
Well, let me explain.
  If abortion was natural, how would the species in question survive?
  
  If ALL girls didn't feel like going through labor, and ALL had abortions,
  where would that situation lead to?  No more humans.  or DEATH!

  Let's say a Zebra was half-way intelligent and didn't want to produce
  other Zebras ... what would happen if all Zebras did this ... NO MORE
  ZEBRAS!

BUT were not talking about dumb Zebras ... were talking about the human race.
We must keep the race continuing ... (no matter what enviromentalist wackos
say:)

-Lee.

-- 
Lee Jorgensen             Internet: jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------
           These are the opinions of my employer
    and they do NOT reflect any personal opinion of mine.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Femi-Nazi's
From: brpleshek@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:17:00 -0500
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
X-From: brpleshek@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
X-Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

X-Date: 26 Sep 92 18:16:24 -0500
X-Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

On the show, and I think that it was on tuesday's program, Rush corrected
our views on what a femi-nazi is.  Could anyone post what it was, I can only
remember part of it.  

Thanx,

Brian Pleshek   "Phantom"
Brpleshek@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Miami University, Ohio
"Smile," they said, "things could be worse."  So I did and it was.
"I'm Right, I'm Right, I'm Right." -- You know who
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh