HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 14:04:09 GMT


In article <1992Apr10.230843.8319@news.cs.brandeis.edu> you write:
>	I think you're still missing his point, Ed.  Don't worry, because there
>is no way at this point in time for the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion.
>The S.C. decides the constitutionality of LAWS, not issues.

Just how can you say and how do you know that I've missed the point
when I say I've said EXACTLY what you've said? If I missed something,
you would have too, since we said exactly the same thing.

>	In order to repeal the 18th amendment, someone had to bring a case to 
>the court, challenging the law on the prohibition issue - showing its
>unconstitutionality.  That's the only means for the S.C. to do anything.

Forget S.C. Let's try the federal level. Sometime soon, case A will
be brought before the Supreme Court; and the court rules Roe vs Wade
is illegal and unconstitutional on grounds that it kills an unborn
human being.

The Court did not ban abortion, the Constitution did. Now, if Congress
or any State try to passed a law to allow abortion, the law cannot
stand. Laws don't override the Constitution. A Constitutional amendment
is needed to legalize abortion. Or the Court overturns itself again.

>	Point being - if the S.C. does overturn Roe v Wade, and as long as the 
>laws protecting abortion on the state level are not of the same vein (ie
>they don't allow for unconditional abortion on demand) then there is a good
>chance that those state laws might survive.  True, abortion might also be 
>outlawed in this case, but the people, thru the demopcratic process, will
>have both choices at their disposal - which is my main concern.

True only if the Court decides to leave it to the States. But if the
Court rules abortion unconstitutional, no state law is exempt.

>	I hope I've been able to clear this up for you.  If you really did 
>understand in the first place, then please accept my humbled apologies for
>wasting you time with such a long-winded analogy/example.
>                                             Patrick 

Yes, I did understand, as I had said so explicitly so many times.
I am not a lawyer (thank God), but I did study US history and
government in grade school and college.

Ed
From: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:06:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr9.020634.12777
Reply-To: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University


 When Clinton admits, Rush
>calls him a drug fiend. When Rush admits, people come to his defense. 
>I agree, there is no issue.

  	Good point, but Rush isn't about to hold himself up as a potential 
leader of the U.S.  Rush isn't making decisions that affect many people
behind closed doors.  Justice Ginzberg would have been making these kinds of
decisions and Bill Clinton (although he never will) would like to find 
himself in this lofty position.  As for Rush's media power, if those who 
listen to his show thought that his mind was warped or that he really
couldn't do the show with half his brain tied behind his back, those folks
would have the good sense not to listen.  It remains to be seen as to 
whether the public buys Bill's credibility - in conjunction with his 
infidelity, I doubt it.

                                    -Patrick Conway
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mad5c@birch.cs.Virginia.EDU (Michael DeLong)
Subject: the "Anita Hill Report"
Keywords: copy grovel
Reply-To: mad5c@birch.cs.Virginia.EDU (Michael DeLong)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 04:40:26 GMT

Does some benevolent soul have a copy of the American Spectator
"Anita Hill Report" willing to send a poor graduate student a
Xerox copy?

I'm just not prepared to drop change on a magazine I've never seen
for a report of dubious value.

I'm also looking for the Rubbergate list, if anyone has seen it.

Thanks in advance,

Mike.



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 15:10:46 GMT

In article <35@milestn.UUCP> marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>Both parties to the best of or knowledge have never operated heavy
>machinery (or political power) while under the influance of 'pot'.

Heavy machinery, no; political power, I am not sure. How do you
know that none of them has smoked pot before they go on the floor
and vote on a bill?

>Why does Bill's sexual habbits matter?

Why don't you ask Slick, "What is the best way to prevent AIDS?"
Do you think he can credibly say "monogomy?" Well, abstinence is
not practical.

Slick's drug message will be, "Drugs, try it once, if you don't
enjoy it, don't do it again."
He's can't possibly use "Just say no!" while he said yes. Maybe
yes means no, or is it no means yes?!

---
Ed
From: bdsuba@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (Grey Rider)
Subject: Re: Rush on Donahue in L.A.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Turner Ranch. Blood Butte, Texas
Distribution: usa
Date: 16 Apr 1992 14:50 EST  

In article <1992Apr16.165846.3275@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, tcanham@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Canham) writes...
>To all the L.A. area dittoheads out there:
> 
>Rush will appear on Donahue in L.A. on April 27 on NBC at 3:00

I strongly recommend this episode of Donahue.  Two things worth watching: 
the typical liberal New York audience desperately trying to portray Rush as 
some type of radical lunatic and failing, and towards the end of the show 
Donahue's staff had prepared visuals that had the definitions of some of 
Rush's commonly used terms (feminazi, environmental whacko), but the 
definitions were blatantly wrong. Once again a slimy, desperate attempt to 
discredit Rush. All in all, Rush wins another one!
From: bvickers@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:49:24 GMT

alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>	On a related topic, can we agree that Rush is Pro-Life now? I
>don't think that he actually said that he supported laws banning
>abortion, but he was sure putting a spin on the rally. I was impressed
>that he could call a half a million people "totally irrelevant", and
>still insist that the marchers were just fringe wackos (Maybe he's
>right, but it seems like there are enough of them now to drop the
>'fringe' label).

The Pro-Choice movement was never a "fringe" movement.  Gallup poll
after Gallup poll has shown that a majority of Americans are opposed
to making abortion illegal.

Plus, there are many more Pro-Choice Republicans than there are
Pro-Life Democrats.  Pete Wilson, Republican governor of California,
is Pro-Choice.  John Seymour, Republican senator from California is
too.  Some of the most conservative Republicans are even Pro-Choice:
Alan Simpson of Wyoming is the best example I can think of right now.
Possible independent presidential candidate, Ross Perot, is Pro-Choice.
Even George Bush was a Pro-Choice Republican before he flip-flopped to
appease the religious right and maintain the Reagan legacy.

The Pro-Life movement is dominated largely by devout Catholics and
fundamentalist Christians.  Not exactly a majority of Americans.

Interesting sidenote:  B-1 Bob Dornan, occasional stand-in for Rush
and very right-wing congressman from California, is being challenged
in the Republican primary by a pro-choice Republican judge.  She's
obviously got B-1 Bob running scared, because he's been threatening
her campaign manager with "you'll never work in this town again"
threats.  That's the democratic spirit, eh?

--
bvickers@ics.uci.edu | "Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there
brett@ucippro.bitnet |  is the danger of oppression." - James Madison
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 17:18:56 GMT

In article <29E89ED6.21872@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>>I wondered what the polls would show if the question "Are you
>>pro-abortion, anti-abortion, or for restricted abortion?" were asked
>>instead of something simple and misleading like "Are you pro-choice
>>or pro-life?"
>
>If you had ever even seen the Gallup Reports on abortion, you would not
>have asked this question.  The Gallup Polls asked whether abortion
>should be made illegal.  A majority of Americans (nearly two-thirds)
>has consistently stated that abortion should remain legal.

This is NOT the question I've asked! Can't you see the difference?
They are two difference questions. Your question divide "respondents"
into two groups, and mine threee. It is this third group that destroy
your credibility. You know deep in your heart that most of the "YES"
votes go to the third group, and hence weaken your argument.

>My point was this:  More politicians are pro-choice than pro-life.  Why
>do you suppose that is?  Could it have anything to do with the fact that,
>say, a majority of the U.S. public is pro-choice?

I suppose when you only have misnomers like "pro-choice" and
"pro-life," people are confused. Again, try the three groups
"anti-abortion," "pro-abortion," and "for restricted abortion"
and perform a survey. Oh, better yet, try "anti-abortion,"
"ANTI-LIFE," and "for restricted abortion" and perform a survey.
Do you think the results of the survey will be the same?

>By the way, your ex cathedra labeling of pro-choice people as "wrong"
>is not going to get you any points in this or any debate.  Let's leave
>the labels out and debate the issues rationally, please.

Excuse me, "wrong" is not a label. You mean I should not say you are
wrong even if you are wrong. So, you don't want me to tell the truth.
Sorry, can't help you; I am an honest person.

>Well, we do have this thing called the separation of Church and State.

What does this got to do with anything? If what you mean is that the
State should not adopt law compatible with the Church's believes then
maybe we should legalize murder, etc.

Disallowing praying in "public" schools is separation of Church and
State. But citizens, who happen to be religious, expressing their
views? Come on! Besides, the ANTI-LIFE movement is basically an
unorganized religion. They don't call themselves "religious," that's
all.

I am not religious, BTW.

>As to your assertion that the government listens to environmentalists
>and AIDS activists:  I'm not quite sure what planet you're living on.

I am from Earth. How about you? You asked that question, I supposed
you must have come from a planet different than mine.
Do you know who Al Gore is? You think he doesn't listen to those
wackos? How about all those liberal government officials? Have you
ever listen to or read those campaign messages?

---
Ed
From: 2frjbits@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Preston J. Park)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: No murder of babies!
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:38:13 CDT
Organization: Macrocosm BBS: 913-841-9446

In article <1992Apr12.100417.510@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
> anywhere else and 'remove everyone in sight'." Abortion is certainly
> killing, but it is a very narrowly defined sort of killing (and it is
> rarely done with firearms).

Oh, a narrowly defined sort of killing.  Gee, I guess that makes it all right.

-- 
| Preston Park |____________________________________________________________
| 1:280/108    | 2frjbits@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | ppark@tesla.ece.ukans.edu |P.|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|The LAUG Apple II Development Group -A SIG of the Lawrence Apple Users Group|
|and Lawrence S.P.A.M. Society -Serious (Silly) Programmers of Apple Machines|
From: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Date: 9 Apr 92 02:15:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Apr9.021511.13001
Reply-To: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University

>Personally, I would wonder about the judgement and character of
>anyone who managed to live through the 60's without being even a little
>curious about what all the fuss was about.

I'm not so sure that I'd wonder about the judgement and/or character
of such a person, even if I didn't live through the 60's.  I wouldn't be
surprised if they were curious, but it doesn't go any further than that.
I'm certaintly not going to question a person's character and judgement on
this issue of curiosity.
                               -Patrick Conway
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:52:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.111241.2882@arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.uucp (Ted Krueger) writes:
>Another comment: When the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will 
>not outlaw abortion, it will simply turn the choice over to the states.  
>If there is a great amount of public support for abortion, then what 
>is N.O.W concerned about? People in the individual states will vote 
>to maintain the legality of abortion. 

I agree with you up to this point. I think Row vs Wade will be
overturned. But I don't know what the consequence will be. I don't
know whether it will be turned over to the states or simply
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If unconstitutional (based on protecting the life
of the unborn child), then States can't legalize it too. I don't
think Congress can pass a law to allow it either, since the
Constitution has precedence. If Congress had passed a law, then
the law would be unconstitutional, by definition. The Constitution
must be changed. Am I right about this?

---
Ed
From: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:00:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: milestn.40
Reply-To: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Organization: Milestone R/D Labs, Milw. WI

In article <1992Apr9.033938.13844@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
[Much deleted about the march....]
> Like Rush, I don't see the need to get really excited about the event
>as a representation of a significant portion of the population, what other 
>reason is there to get excited?
>--------------------------------------Patrick S. Conway

No, like Rush you see no reason to get 'excited' over 500,000 people at a 
march BECAUSE the march didn't agree with your political mindset.

Alex is 'excited' about Rush's reaction to the march, not the march
itself.   Rush's ability to dismiss 500,000 people BEACUSE of the
political nature of the march.  And instead of Rush just saying
they march was 'the work of nimbrods', the march was the work of
FRINGE elements.  
(Hey, at least the 'internet nimbrods' aren't fringe..... :-) )

Now this is a question for you Pat.... if ~=30% of the population 
votes in elections, is this a significant portion of the population?
(I will maintain that given the importance of the vote, 30% is not
significant.)


-- 
Marc Rassbach       marcr@studsys.mu.edu       If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: No murder of babies!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 10:17:49 -0500

In article <1992Apr14.183813.39359@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 
2frjbits@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Preston J. Park) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.100417.510@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, nathan engle 
><nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>> anywhere else and 'remove everyone in sight'." Abortion is certainly
>> killing, but it is a very narrowly defined sort of killing (and it is
>> rarely done with firearms).
>
>Oh, a narrowly defined sort of killing.  Gee, I guess that makes it all right.

    In my view of the situation, the thing that makes abortion "all
right" is that the killing occurs before society has made tremendous
investments in education and time which are required to get people "up
to speed" in how to live in today's world. For me, it's a simple matter
of seniority and cost-effectiveness. We've got a lot of fully grown 
people already standing in line for welfare and job training, and in
my opinion those people should get more priority for our attention and 
resources than new arrivals. We can get fully grown people back on 
their feet and functioning a lot more quickly and with a lot less 
effort than we would spend doing the same thing with newborn children 
starting from scratch.

    At the moment, our society "throws away" a lot of people including
many of the very old and the very young. Until we all become wealthy as
kings I think that society will continue to throw people away. The real
question in my mind is how to get society "throw away" less of the
people in whom we already have a heavy investment. My heart bleeds
for the fetuses who lose their chance, but my vote for where to put our
time, effort, and resources is to concentrate on what we've already
started.

    So, in direct response to your comment, I would say that it's not
the fact that abortion is narrowly defined which makes it "all right"
(read that as "the best of several bad alternatives"), but rather that
it's the most cost effective approach. If you wanted to create a narrow
definition in which it's "all right" to kill college professors, radio 
talk show hosts, or software jugglers, then I would be opposed because
it's a waste to throw away the investment society has made in raising
and educating these people. The societal investment in a 1st trimester 
fetus is minimal; a sperm and an egg and about 3 months of time. We 
can afford to lose a few fetuses and still have a functioning society.

-- 
Nathan Engle             Software Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 18:29:04 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.163230.14153@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.145243.6031@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>
>>I agree with you up to this point. I think Row vs Wade will be
>>overturned. But I don't know what the consequence will be. I don't
>>know whether it will be turned over to the states or simply
>>UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If unconstitutional (based on protecting the life
>>of the unborn child), then States can't legalize it too. I don't
>>think Congress can pass a law to allow it either, since the
>>Constitution has precedence. If Congress had passed a law, then
>>the law would be unconstitutional, by definition. The Constitution
>>must be changed. Am I right about this?
>
>	Close, but not quite. The Supreme Court cannot find that 
>legal abortion is unconstitutional, unless legal abortion was made into
>a law (ie: congress passes a law limiting abortion laws). This is because
>the Supreme Court does not make laws.
>
>	What can happen is that the supreme court can examine roe v. wade,
>and throw it out, possibly on constitutional grounds. That decision would
>allow laws to be made that restricted abortion. At that point, the Senate
>and House could get together and make a federal law restricting abortion,
>but it would probably be thrown out by the court for the same reason as
>roe v. wade (ie: it's a states rights issue).

I thought that's what I said?! If the court decided abortion is
constitutionally illegal, then no law can be passed to "legalize" it.
Constitutional amendment is required.

>	The far right side of the republican party is lobbying to enact a
>constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion, which is the ultimate way
>to bring the country around to one way of thinking. If you are in favor 
>of this, I urge you to lobby your contact party office and make this part
>of the official Republican Party Platform.

No, I am for restricted abortion, not banning it, nor allow abortion
on demand. I don't think either side will get anywhere with this
issue; the fight continues, and the 65% of the people like me lose
simply because we are in the middle. But it's good to watch them
fight; it's fun. 8-)

---
Ed
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: "Andrew C. Aiken" <aaiken@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:40:00 -0500

In <1992Apr13.100355.29776@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:

>>[Backing up a bit for historic reasons...... The rush.regulars (I believe
>>it was none other than Nathan and Andrew) said they had tried pot and
>>said most people in the '60s tried pot.  Ed responded with the above.]

>    Hold on thar. I said I tried it. I even inhaled. But I don't think I
>tried to speak for what most people did. When you get right down to it,
>I was in knee pants back in the 60's so I didn't even try pot during the
>60's myself; more like the late 70's/early 80's.

	Well, I wasn't even born until 1968.  My dad used to own a record
store (in the late 60s and early 70's) so I remember (if barely) the
psychedelic posters and beads.  I did try pot once - I was a freshman in
college (1986).  I did inhale, but I didn't really care much for the taste
or the crowd that I did it with.  I choose not to smoke pot for the same 
reasons that some people choose not to drink: I just don't care for the
sensation that it gives me.  Still, its effects are mild, so this fuss
over a single incident seems a bit silly.  If Bill Clinton used cocaine
or heroin, then the media attention would be more justified.
	Bill Clinton is insincere and unremorseful about his past.  His
character is questionable.  But I base this judgement upon things such as
marital fidelity and his circumlocutions about his draft record.  Next to
these issues, a single joint is a trifle.


Andrew Aiken

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 17:33:38 GMT

In article <44@milestn.UUCP> marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>Again Ed, Why does Bill's sexual habbits matter?

It is not so much habbits. Habbits defines as "missionary," "69,"
"doggie," etc. It is more about his integrity as indicated by his
marrital infidelity. I do expext higher moral values from our
officials. Maybe you don't, but I do. Whose morals? Mine, of course.
I am making the judgment here. When you make the judgment, it'd
be your morals.

Does it make any difference to you if Slick Willy admits that Geniffer
Flowers was his mistress, and still is? Furthermore, he's 5 other
mistresses in five different states. He has no intention to stop
these relationships. Hilary, Gennifer, and all of the other 5 women
will all move into the White House. (There's plenty of room, don't
worry.) How do you feel about that? Will you still vote for him?

---
Ed
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh