HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:16:11 GMT

In article <mykes.0dce@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

	[re: term limits]
>But there are term limits on the President, and even if it meant Reagan didn't
>get a 3rd and 4th term, I am still happy about it.  I'm curious as to why you
>believe Bush is even running for a 2nd term...

	Why shouldn't he? He obviosly wants the job (He'll do whatever
it takes to win) so let him run. I don't mind him running, it
*winning* that would bother me

	[re: franking priveleges]

>> 	Uh, huh. And the white house chief of staff is now George Bushs
>> campaign manager, at taxpayers expense. what of it? He's still going to lose.

>As for Baker, he has ALWAYS managed George Bush's campaigns.  It is up to them
>to decide if they wish to continue that relationship.  Oh, I see.  You'd deny
>George the privilige of hiring who he wants?

	Nope. I'd deny him the white house payroll to finance his campaign.
The white house chief of staff is supposed to be a public servent, not a
personale employee of a presidential candidate. GHWB had to pull some
campaign commercials because the featured the presidential seal, I'm 
suprised that putting half the white house staff on the reelection comittee
hasn't become an issue.


>I didn't miss your sarcasm :)

	I bet you didn't. By the way, You left Orin Hatch (R. Utah) off your
list of congressional scandles, he helped a buddy get a $10M from BCCI, in
a scandle that still hasn't embroiled Jimmy Carter. Just so you know.

-- 
                               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: mxa2677@usl.edu (Axelrod Michael)
Subject: Re: TV Show
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 03:39:23 GMT

In article <LARRY.92Sep15170049@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.102827.9314@usl.edu> mxa2677@usl.edu (Axelrod Michael) writes:
>
>   How does one go about getting tickets to be in Rush's audience?
>
>Send a request to Rush, on the back of a 20 dollar bill, in care of EIB..
>
  I don't think the FCC approves of selling tickets to TV shows :-{)


--
Michael J. Axelrod
mikey@usl.edu
--
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:29:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

In article <1992Sep8.232019.18765@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:

>The concept of a written Constitution had as one of its ideals the concept
>that the rights set aside by it could not be readily changed.  Yes, they could
>be changed by, but only by the procedures described within itself - by the
>Congress or by Constitutional convention, only.  This is not what has been
>going on this century.  For example, there is no right to privacey specifically
>written about in the Constitution, and yet one of the arguments behind the Roe
>V. Wade decision was a woman's fundamental right to privacey.  In fact, the
>Constitution actually specifies the government's right to appropriate search
>(i.e., with due cause).  This meaning was redefined by the Supreme Court and
>thus changed the meaning of the Constitution.  Likewise, the federal court
>system has "defined" that employers have the "right" to collect urine samples
>for drug tests, with no restrictions as to what else those same companies can
>test for in those samples.  Perhaps screening for employees with high risk
>medical conditions so that they can be lid-off, perhaps even before the
>employee knows that they have a health problem.  Where is the right to
>privacey here?  What the courts now consider to be "cruel and unusual
>punishment" would not have been that bad of a life two hundred years ago.

If memory serves, the fundamental right to privacy was discovered in the
1965 Griswold vs. Connecticut decision.  Connecticut had a law preventing
married women from acquiring birth control devices (like the pill) without
their husbands' consent.  The conservative Court of Reagan/Bush has been
nibbling away at this decision.  The cases you state above show this.
"Where is the right to privacey (sic) here?" you ask.  The answer, the
conservative Court has decided that the employers search for employees
taking drugs and employers desire to cut health-care costs are more
important than privacy.  Where will it end?

Individual rights conservatives should be outraged.  I know I am.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:20:52 GMT

In<mykes.0dou@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In <1992Sep11.085452.3350@walter.cray.com> toma@romulus.cray.com (Thomas Arneberg) writes:
>> >: Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?

>> I'm pretty sure that Congress exempts itself from all quota legislation
>> ("Affirmative Action"f  you prefer euphemisms). Why would they force
>> businesses to do things that they themselves can't abide by?

>Gramm/Rudman is another clear cut example of how congress put itself above
>the law.This law was passed by congress to police congress - to force mandatory
>across the board budget cuts in all programs in order to prevent defecit growth

No, it was designed to reduce the deficit, not to "police congress."

>In 1990,just before Bush signed the infamous tax rate hike bill, he had allowed
>3 sequesters (G/R deadlines) to happen.  Each time, congress simply passed a 
>measure to push the deadline out a few more weeks.

Excuse me?  This is an example of Congress changing the law, not
putting itself above the law.

>Another easy example of congress putting itself above the law is the Bowlen
>amendment, which prohibited sales of arms to the contras during Reagan's terms.
>This amendment was highly unconstitutional, because the constitution does not
>allow for one of the three branches to make laws to limit the contitutional
>power of one of the other branches.  It is fully withing the Constitutional
>powers of the president to sell arms to the contras-it's called foreign policy.

What an - um - interesting analysis of events.  Far as I know, even
Reagan and his statist judicial appointments never had quite that
interpretation of the Boland amendment.

Constitutional powers of the president (from Article 2, Section 2)

Commander in Chief of the armed forces
Pardons
Make treaties with the advice and consent of the senate
Appoint, with the advice and consent of the senate, ambassadors, judges,
	and various cabinet heads.
Convene Congress into special sessions
Receive ambassadors

Take care that the laws be faithfully executed

Also vetoing bills, of course.

Selling arms to the contras doesn't seem to be in there.  (Neither are
the words 'foreign policy'.)  Hmmm...

(Furthermore, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign
nations.)
-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Orioles 1992 World Series Champions
niepornt@phoenix.    | Mike Mussina 1992 AL Cy Young Winner
   princeton.edu     | Brady Anderson 1992 AL MVP
Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more months!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Knee-jerk reaction Re: Clinton Screws Up!  Press Reports It!
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:10:22 GMT


In a previous article, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:

>Au contraire mon ami!
>
>jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>@In a startling change of events this morning, my newspaper actually
>@had a (short) paragraph on a recent Clinton faux pas.  
>@
>@Seems at a campaign stop he railed on the big spending we were doing
>@on military weapons systems and brought up the Patriot which "can fly
>@through doors and down chimineys."  Hmmmm.  Probably just an honest
>@mistake from somebody who doesn't know a good offense from a bad
>@defense...
>
>Well, CNN today (9-10AM 9/9/92) reported that DAN QUAYLE had made the
>gaffe! Later in the program the anchors apologized for the error and
>said that it was in fact Bill Clinton who screwed up.
>
>Boy, it's hard to break four years of habit! :-)
>

Especially when Quayle continues screwing up.

Like his reaction to Clinton's statement that he knew nothing about foreign
policy (foreign policy??), that it was the cruise missile which did the things
Clinton attributed to the Patriot...

It was reported later that the cruise missile WAS NOT capable of dropping down
chimneys...that's the SmartBomb...
>-- 
>Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Assembly of God???  Strange.. *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // I was not aware that the diety  *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // was available in sourse form.."  *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Date: 11 Sep 92 17:41:39 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 115353MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu, MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.070350.16239@usl.edu>, das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel
>A) says:
>>In article <1992Sep7.191117.13377@uncle.cmhnet.org> david@uncle.cmhnet.org
>>writes:
>>>...all of which has nothing to do if someone can do the job or not.
>>Like being Commander in Chief?
>Yup. Exactly. You catch on quick.
>Ronald Reagan, for example, got out of the WWII draft, spending the war making
>movies in Hollywood. I presume you don't think that made HIM unfit to be
>Commander in Chief, do you?

RR had as much foreign policy experience as Bill Clinton does too.  

---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger)
Subject: Slick Willie strikes again
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:23:14 GMT


I normally avoid pejoratives, and it once was that I always spoke of "Gov.
Clinton" not just "Clinton," but after seeing the Artful Dodger take his
own quotes and those of others and carefully replace key words to change
the meanings, I have come to the conclusion "Slick Willie" is accurate.
Yesterday I heard him say, almost verbatim, "Someone even said we need a
religious war.  We don't need a religious war..."  Obviously he was refer-
ring to Pat Buchanan because Mr. Buchanan was maligned for these lines in
his convention speech:

     My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is
  about who we are. It is about what we believe, it is about what we stand
  for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the
  soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation
  we will one day be -- as was the Cold War itself.

Clearly Mr. Buchanan never said "we need a religious war."  He said "there
is a religious war."  No matter what you think about the fact that there
is or is not such a war, you must admit it's pretty slick of Clinton to
twist Mr. Buchanan's words as he did.

Kurt R. Krueger
kkrueger@unomaha.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: sjs@netcom.com (Stephen Schow)
Subject: Re: Rush's TV Show starts Sept. 14
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 17:38:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na

Anyone have a list of stations yet?
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schow    | But you don't have to use the claw, if you
sjs@netcom.com | pick the pear with the big paw paw......
               | Have I given you a clue......?
               |                       - Baloo the Bear
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: stubberu@seidel.ucsb.edu (Stephen C. Stubberud)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Military service...
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:30:13 GMT
Distribution: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

According to Rush,  he had a high lottery number and
was never called. 

SCS

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5291 rec.humor:28443 talk.bizarre:29821 talk.politics.misc:45014
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Distribution: na
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 12 Sep 92 00:51:44 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Sep11.085452.3350@walter.cray.com> toma@romulus.cray.com (Thomas Arneberg) writes:
> >: Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?
>
> I'm pretty sure that Congress exempts itself from all quota legislation
> ("Affirmative Action"f  you prefer euphemisms). Why would they force
> businesses to do things that they themselves can't abide by?
>

Gramm/Rudman is another clear cut example of how congress put itself above
the law.  This law was passed by congress to police congress - to force mandatory
across the board budget cuts in all programs in order to prevent defecit growth.
In 1990, just before Bush signed the infamous tax rate hike bill, he had allowed
3 sequesters (G/R deadlines) to happen.  Each time, congress simply passed a measure
to push the deadline out a few more weeks.

Another easy example of congress putting itself above the law is the Bowlen
amendment, which prohibited sales of arms to the contras during Reagan's terms.
This amendment was highly unconstitutional, because the constitution does not
allow for one of the three branches to make laws to limit the contitutional
power of one of the other branches.  It is fully withing the Constitutional
powers of the president to sell arms to the contras - it's called foreign policy.

> ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
> ;-) 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
> ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------

--
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
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:10:33 GMT

Mr. Page, please attribute all quotes you use.

In article <1992Sep8.225801.18365@csc.ti.com>
   dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:

[The first quote is mine]

>|> The State of Utah, or any other state, may not use federal tax dollars to
>|> promote a religion.  When the state accepts federal tax dollars for,
>|> education, they agree to abide by a set of rules.  Because of the
>|> Constitution, these rules include the prohibition of "respecting the
>|> establishment of religion".  If the Federal Government didn't pay for
>|> it, the individual states could do whatever they wanted.
>|> 
>|> I just do not want to see my tax dollars go to support your religious
>|> beliefs.

>Nor do I want to fund the secular humanists.  Remember, the same Supreme Court
>that removed prayer from schools because it "promotes" a religion has also
>declared that secular humanism IS a religion.  Secular humanism IS being
>supported with federal $s in public schools especially in the areas of sex and
>HIV/AIDS education.

In my understanding, "secular humanism" is the belief that the human race
has the ability to better itself without the permission or assistance of
a deity.  I don't ever recall hearing that philosophy espoused when I went
to school.

Are schools teaching sex and AIDS education in accordance with secular
humanistic principles?  Yes.  Are schools teaching sex and AIDS because
of secular humanistic beliefs?  No.

Do schools have rules against stealing that are in accordance with
Judeo-Christian principles?  Yes.  Do schools have rules against stealing
because of Judeo-Christian beliefs?  No.  It is the rules of society and
the rights of the individual not to have their property taken.

Secular humanists believe in scientific inquiry.  If a school teaches
science, does that school promote secular humanism?

>It is also interesting to note that federal $s are rather routinely used by
>PBS to broadcast New Age sermons.

Exaclty what do you call a "New Age sermon?"  Environmental programs?
The McLaughlin Group?  Masterpiece Theatre?  This Old House?

>So where is the establishment clause in these cases?
  
It seems that anything scientists say that does not fit into your belief
window becomes "secular humanism."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: SPEECH: Dan Quayle on "Restoring Basic Values"
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 00:21:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.133807.21737@walter.cray.com> jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) writes:
>>
>>I always find this babble from Our Boy to be especially
>>amusing in light of the fact that conservatives are
>>fond of bashing liberals for approaching social ills
>>with "quick fix" solutions.
>>
>
> I've just changed my view on this subject and will propose the 
>feminist logic "get out of my womb, big brother government" when
>it comes to solving poverty and crime etc in the inner city. GOvernment
>will no longer help in any way. Government will get out of their
>life too. 

Ditto. :) 

And while we're at it, those poor folks can "get out of my
pocketbook, Big Government." None of my wages will go to suppor them. 

>Thanks for the idea Eric.

Thanks for the idea, Jon. 

=============================================================================
Of course everyone knows I am not being serious. "Get out of my
pocketbook" is about as stupid and senseless as "get out of my womb.."
=============================================================================
|                             PRIDE = POWER.                                |
|			Card-carrying member, NRLC                          |
|           Dedicated to achieving civil rights for the unborn              |
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	       The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re:  Clinton, draft dodger.  YUP!
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 15:10:42 GMT

In article <1898@celia.UUCP> steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>  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.

	Is this supposed to refer to Dan Quayle, a three term congressman,
one term senator and 4 year VP? Lessee: If he was in college until he was
25, and he's 45 now, and he spent the last 20 years in public service, then
he didn't have much time to "work hard his entire ligfe in hte private
sector". Has Quayle Ever worked a non political job?

-- 
                               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: shapiro@trade.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: Rush on TV in Eastern MA
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Date: 11 SEP 92 23:12:02 EST


>I saw that the Rush Limbaugh TV show will be airing on 9/14 on WMUR (New
>Hampshire). I didn't catch the air time, but at least now I know WHERE it
>will be. 

I also saw that it will be on WWOR Ch 9 (New Jersey) at 12:30 am weeknites.
(That's cable channel 26 for Heritage cable subscribers in North Reading and
Andover MA). This is the same channel that carries the Howard Stern TV show.
However, Howard airs on Saturdays at 11pm. Hmmm. Wonder if that means anything.

Regards,
Steve.

/*********************************************************************
*                               *                                    *
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed   *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and do not neccessarily *
* Specializing in: HP/SUN/UNIX  * reflect those of my clients,       *
* DEC/VAX/VMS/ULTRIX, IBM PC    * employers, employees, children,    *
* C, FORTRAN, PASCAL, PL/1      * parents, spouse or even myself!    *
*                               *                                    *
**********************************************************************
* The Contract Professional BBS, North Reading, MA                   *
* FidoNet 1:101/440 (508) 664-6354                                   *
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org                             *
*********************************************************************/

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh