HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Date: 24 Jul 92 15:35:03 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>->    I think that what they're actually saying is not that the bail-out
>->money is being paid directly to those greedy rich 80's types, but rather
>->that it's being paid *because* of their mismanagement and fraud. And, at
>->least in some small part, it's being paid because of an idea championed 
>->by that nice old man, Ron Reagon.

> Please notice. I said Reagan was partially responsable.
> Why dont you admit that Carter and Congress were partially responsable ?

    Well, frankly, I don't see how you expect me to hold Carter responsible 
for S&L deregulation which took place years after he left office. I agree 
that the Congress is culpable as all get out, but I have to take exception
to your implication that Carter was involved. It just seems to me like 
another attempt to invoke Carter as a generic liberal boogey-man who can
be blamed for all of the woes of society.

    So, yes, Congress played its part, but if you're looking for a chief
executive to pin the S&L crisis on then I think it would be unrealistic 
to try to pin it on Carter.

> Oh, your trying to make an election issue out of it.

    No, I'm not trying to *make* an election issue of it. The S&L bailout
made itself an issue simply because of the massive scale of fraud and 
mismanagement we're now being called upon to fix. I'm certainly guilty of
trying to highlight what I think was one of the roots of the problem, 
however I think that the S&L situation will come up this November no 
matter what I do.

>  Isnt most of this money tied up in real estate that cant be leased right
>  now ? Congress then sells the real estate during a low market and takes
>  a big loss. Since Congress cant mismanage in your eyes, you dont complain.

    I'm curious on what evidence you base that statement. I don't believe 
I've ever said that Congress is incapable of mismanagement or error.

>  I try to complain about congress's mismanagement and total lack of know-
>  ledge on how the Free Market works, all the time..

    Well, I guess that's just a difference between us. I try to *avoid* 
complaining about things all the time. I prefer taking action. In the case 
of Congress, I don't see much point in complaining too much since I plan to 
make my opinions known in the voting booth in November when I vote against 
every incumbent on the ballot (a course of action which I encourage 
everyone to emulate).

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 03:46:15 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.015312.23522@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
>
>For some reason, many parents have this thing called "unconditional love" for 
>their children.  This is the ultimate in "family values."  One may disagree 
>with his child, but that doesn't mean he stops loving her, or "disowns" her.  I
>can't believe how some people are reading into this...
>-- 
>Susan E. Schudt
>Dept. of Chemical Engineering - Ohio State
>"When you're Right, you're right!"
>"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!"

You are right on target, Susan.  But your comments apply not only to
children but friends as well.  I have had several friends come and talk
to me about the possibility of having an abortion.  Some had an abortion
some did not.  I do not love them any less but I am sorry that they
killed their child (fetus if you insist).  No matter what the outcome
was they were glad I was there.  Does this make me pro-abortion?  I
don't think so and neither do they.  But they did trust me to be
unfailing in my love.  I fail to see how this makes me a hypocrite.  The
whole thing is about love.  It is unfortunate that some have such an
immature understanding of the term.

Tim

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: Incompetent S&L deregulation
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:08:43 GMT

In article <nate.383@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>    So, do you think that everything would be just rosy today if the S&L's
>had been deregulated without any deposit insurance so that when the crash 
>occurred the depositors would have been the ones who took it on the chin?

Banks that wanted to attract depositers would need to advertise the
fact that they have private insurance.  The private insurers, unlike the
government, have an incentive to closely monitor the portfolios, industry 
trends and finanical health of their customers.  They would have reigned 
in the speculative lending.  

>What happened when banks failed in the late 
>1920's? All the sudden people didn't have money to spend and the consumer
>economy collapsed.

I love you liberals, still trying to fix the problems of sixty years
ago. :-)  There was a definite lack of market information and private
deposit insurance in that era, and the Depression was due just as
much to the government's reaction as to the initial market fluctations.
The Depression was still on up to the start of WWII; bank regulation and 
civilian government spending did not fix it. 


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Family Values" in Hollywood
Date: 23 Jul 92 16:59:28 GMT
	<BrpyHr.Hn2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <LARRY.92Jul21144757@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>
	<BrruK8.F66@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

Good points, Tim.

I am probably a little too hard on Quayle. I watched a few of his
appearances lately, and the man is not a buffoon. He has, unfortunately
been saddled with a reputation of being a dim bulb. He isn't brilliant and
charismatic, but neither is he some sort of idiot.

Now, without wanting to make anyone mad here, let me state that I view
Quayle's shortcoming somewhat like Carter's - lack of leadership
potential. Both men seem honorable, and well meaning. They just lack
the strength of leadership. My opinion, again. [You will concede that Carter
lacked leadership abilities as president?]

If you want to know what was in my mind during the original post, I was
recalling a couple of spots I saw on CNN which had "man on the street"
type interviews where some of the people seemed genuinely concerned at the
prospect of Quayle taking over as president. Naturally, there were no high
ranking Republicans around saying anything of the kind.

I also seem to remember a column in our local newspaper about it. But
again, no high ranking Republicans expressed any concern. I wouldn't
expect any high ranking Republican to publicly state such fears, would
you? 

I'm not sure we can easily sit down and equate performance of the vice
presidency as some indicator of competency for the presidency. The two
jobs are so entirely different most of the time. For example, I have a
hard time remembering anything that Bush did as VP that would indicate his
potential as president. (Of course, Bush's other extensive experience in
government service, including the CIA is another matter.)

So, maybe I've been shooting from the hip on the Quayle issue. I'll try to
keep an open mind about him as November approaches.

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..
Straw? No, too stupid a fad. I put soot on warts.
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: EQUITY and Barbara Jordon
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:22:06 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Jul22.165642.24334@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> In article <mykes.09gl@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
> >The gas lines were before 1974.  Nixon was president during the oil embargo.
> >But the prime lending rate WAS pushing 20% when Carter left office.  And,
> >no, Carter had nothing to do with Watergate - BCCI definately, but Watergate
> >no.
>
> 	Is there any evidance to link Carter with BCCI, or is this just a
> random accusation? I was under the imression that no one had been able
> to find any real dirt about that.
>

Yes there is evidence to link Carter with BCCI.  The investigations are not
through, but the information will be made public in the end.  It isn't just
carter, but much of his administration that is implicated.  Much todo with
Carter's use of the CIA.  This is gonna be a biggie - but note that it wasn't
made public before the elections :-)

> 	Lessee: A poster blamed Carter for 12% unemployment, 20% lending
> rates and long gas lines. Two out of three are bullshit, and the last is
> exaggerated. Mike Schwartz defends the one plausable comment of the three,
> and adds more bullshit to the pile.
>

12% unemployment is true.  Near 20% lending rates is true.  I bought a house
in 1981, 4 months after Regan was sworn in.  When the loan was applied for,
the interest rate was 18.75%.  In the 45 days between application for the loan
and the closing on the house, the interest rates fell to 12.125%.  How old
were you, Alex, during the Arab Oil Embargo?

> 	And you wonder why you have no credability (But don't worry, good
> dittoheads will swollow every word, they don't care if it's true).
>

And YOU talk about Rush attacking people...

>
>
>
> --
> Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
> 					Alex Crain
> 					UMBC Academic Computing Services

--
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

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 01:53:12 GMT



In article <1992Jul23.170632.14292@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S.
 Crain) writes:
>    I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>decsion that she made".
>
>    Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
>--
>Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
>                        Alex Crain
>                        UMBC Academic Computing Services


For some reason, many parents have this thing called "unconditional love" for 
their children.  This is the ultimate in "family values."  One may disagree 
with his child, but that doesn't mean he stops loving her, or "disowns" her.  I
can't believe how some people are reading into this...
-- 
Susan E. Schudt
Dept. of Chemical Engineering - Ohio State
"When you're Right, you're right!"
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate!"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: "Family Values" in Hollywood
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 14:38:49 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Jul19.224052.7978@fs7.ece.cmu.edu> mhl@spirit.ece.cmu.edu (Mikko H. Lipasti) writes:
>
>Yet another example of sidestepping the question and taking a cheap
>potshot at the vice president.  I believe it is now "politically correct"
>to make fun of Dan Quayle, regardless of whether or not he's hit the nail
>on the head (and he usually has).  Thinking back, I can come up with at
>least the following issues on which I agree with him 100%:
>
>1.  The above-mentioned "Hollywood values" issue.
>2.  Murphy Brown glamorizing single parenthood.
>3.  Comments to the Bar Association re. too much litigation going on.
>
>...and so on.  Let's try to compile a list of issues and statements here
>that show Dan Quayle to be either (1) the thoughtful, intelligent, mature,
>insightful, and eminently qualified vice president that I believe he is, 
>or (2) the idiot buffoon that the media and posters like Larry the Evil 
>Engineer seem to think he is.  And let's try to restrict this to issues 
>instead of spelling mistakes, please.

	4. He and Jack Kemp were the only two in the administration who opposed 
	   the budget agreement and tax increases of 1991.
	5. He urged the President to get approval from Congress for the Gulf War.
	6. As the leader of the Competitiveness Council he has pushed for
	   cost/benefit analyses of new regulations.

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

===============================================================================
It can't be won, the way the game is run
but if you choose to stay, you wind up playing anyway.

		"On the Boulevard" -- Jackson Browne

===============================================================================
"As to guaranteeing bank deposits, the minute the government starts to do that
... the  government  runs  into a  probable loss.  We  do not wish to make the 
United  States Government liable  for the  mistakes and  errors of  individual
banks, and put a premium on sound banking in the future."
                                      Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933)
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: BIG NEWS - Perot is OUT!
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:28:31 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana

In article <mykes.09f3@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In article <BrLKnK.124@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>> >I stick to my predictions, made in a post 2-3 weeks ago, that Perot
>> >will be 2nd in the voting.
>>
>> Could you please give a confidence rating with this prediction (e.g.,
>> 10% sure, 90% sure)?
>
>100% sure.

Thanks.

>
>> >The 2nd bit of news is that scum of all scum, Clarence Thomas,
>I like Thomas.  I tried to phrase it so a Left Winger would understand
>it.  Sarcasm.  Now I see why Rush says not to try it at home :)

Oh, I think you'd do ok on radio.  But sarcasm on email is tricky.  If
Rush had to do his show over email he wouldn't be operating with zero
mistakes :) :).

Tim
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3751 alt.rush-limbaugh:2999
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:32:57 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 14p8bdINNcuf@early-bird.think.com, fuhry@think.com (Debbie Fuhry) writes:
>He *is* willing to go that far to prevent his own *adult* daughter from
>having an abortion.  However, since we're talking about an *adult*
>daughter, that's all he can do.  Once she's gotten the abortion, should he
>disown her?  I don't think he was saying he'd tell her "Oh, it's alright
>honey, do whatever you think is best, and we're behind you all the way."
>I'm sure it's something like "You know what we believe about this decision,
>but you're still our daughter, and we won't stop loving you because of it."

If he were true to his word (abortion is murder, etc.) then he would condemn
and disown his daughter.  Since he is not and doesn't believe in the anti-
choice point of view he is only showing his true colors.  He should show the
same condemnation for his daughter having an abortion as he would if his
daughter were to throw his grandchild into a vat of hot oil.  This is what
is so duplicitous and disingenuous on his part.

---
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: EQUITY and Barbara Jordon
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:41:07 GMT

In article <mykes.09e6@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>> 	lessee: a 'Nazi' is not derogatory, but 'Jerk' is. This is pushing
>> it a bit, don't you think, Mike?

>No.  If you call someone a jerk, you are using fighting words.  If you
>call someone a Nazi, you may or may not offend the person.

	But what if I explain what a jerk is for 20 minutes first, using
vague accusations abount unspecified people and their views. Can I then
use "Jerk" to decribe someone without being derogatory?

	How about "Fat Slob"? "Asshole"? "idiot"? "Cretin"?

	This is ludicrus. Rush Limbaugh makes his living by insulting the
other side. He routinely use derogatory comments and vague accusations
to define large groups of people, and thats part of his show. Most of
his arguments are not substancial, his logic is often flawed and his facts
are not terribly accurate. He relies largly on anicdotal evidance and
applies specific examples of idiocy to the whole of the democratic party.

	Its fun, its entertaining, and people like to listen to it, but it's
rhetorical oratory not intellectual discussion. Pretending that it is is 
foolish, and makes you look stupid. Don't do it.

>> 	What has Bill Clinton lost?
>
>He lost because he was nominated by a party of losers.

	I don't want to burst your bubble, Mike, but George is in deep shit
this time around. He's on his third campaign manager, and he's still sinking
like a rock. Anybody who thinks that this race is a sure thing (in either
direction) has been smoking too many banana peels.

-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: EQUITY and Barbara Jordon
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 16:53:44 GMT

In article <mykes.09vv@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>> 	Is there any evidance to link Carter with BCCI, or is this just a
>> random accusation? I was under the imression that no one had been able
>> to find any real dirt about that.
>>
>
>Yes there is evidence to link Carter with BCCI.  The investigations are not
>through, but the information will be made public in the end.  It isn't just
>carter, but much of his administration that is implicated.  Much todo with
>Carter's use of the CIA.  This is gonna be a biggie - but note that it wasn't
>made public before the elections :-)

	Does this come from anywhere, or is it just wishful thinking on your
part? I've seen no reports, and I would notice if one when past, so I conclude
that your privy to some kind of insider information. Either that, or it's
just more bullshit...

	Don't be shy, Mike, where does one go to find about about the current
state of the Carter/BCCI investigation that only you seem to know about?

-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Naked Gun 2.5
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:52:28 GMT
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <LARRY.92Jul29082856@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>, larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
> In article <mykes.0aal@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> 
>   I just saw this movie for the third time - but the first in the last couple
>   of years (it seems).  Anyhow, I thouroughly enjoyed the comedy in the movie.
>   In particular, there was a scene where Leslie Nielson and Priscilla Presley
>   meet for the first time in years at a restaurant.  Nielson makes some comment
>   about how she had gone off and gotten involved in the movement to save the
>   endzone layer :)  Then he told her how he had spent his life savings to buy
>   100,000 acres of Brazilian Rain Forest and had cleared it all away so they
>   could build their dream house there.  He said "You think it's easy to move
>   whole tribes off your land?" :)  All great jokes.
> 
>   And the scene took place in a restaurant that had the glummest (is that
>   a real word? :) atmosphere.  The singer was singing the blues, and the
>   pictures on the wall depicted great disasters of the last century -
>   the Hindenburg in flames, the Titanic sinking, and a picture of Mike
>   Dukakis :)  Additionally, there were many many jokes about how bad a shape
>   the democratic party was in - one even suggested the party was VERY close
>   to self-destruction.
> 
>   Seeing how movies tend to reflect society at the time they are filmed,
>   this says a lot about how far the Dems have been able to rebound in a
>   short time.  It also shows how bad people felt about the party in general.
>   Boy do times change?  I say NOT.
> 
> And you're not going to take Evil Hollywood to task for its blatant
> tastelessness and immorality? 
> 
> I take it you enjoyed the references to [body] condoms and safe sex in the
> previous movies as well then? Actually, the sex scene in "..The Smell of
> Fear" was fairly suggestive too. You don't think it wrecked the morals of
> all young people who saw the movie?
>

jeez,

am i the ONLY person who hated this movie???  the jokes were tired 
rehashes of stuff seen in the other naked gun movie and in the series.
there was nothing funny or original is this one. leslie nielson just
sleep-walked through the whole film. i think he even realized how poor
the film was.

it was a thinly disguised attempt to indoctrinate america into the
environmental extremest movement! just think about who the main villans
were, american industrialists who were trying to keep solar energy from
being developed so that they can burn their fossil fuels.  HAR HAR HAR,
god, that's funny!!!

this movie ruined any future movies produced by zucker, zucker, and abrams
for me. i'll wait for them to come on cable cuz' i ain't shelling out 7$
to see this politically correct garbage ever again!!!!


don wedding