HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org (Lance Franklin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Thank you for answering my question! Maybe
Date: 25 Sep 92 15:03:36 GMT
Organization: NC Microproducts, Inc.

jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
}Bert Smith <bowler@athena.mit.edu> writes:
}>Here we go again.  By the definitions used, Bush has raised "taxes" many,
}>many more times than 1.  Some of these Clinton "tax" increases were $5
}>fee increases.  Some of the Clinton tax increases were temporary.    Some
}>of the tax increases have been repealed.  Geeeeezzz.
}
}Geeeezzz yourself - you missed the point. Matalin came out with the 128 tax 
}increases figure and Clinton's campaign, plus most of the media, jumped
}all over her for distorting figures and lying and being sleazy. Yet 
}Clinton's own campaign came up with almost the exact same figure. I don't
}hear any apologies being made to Matalin, nor any mea culpas from the press.
}You can argue Bush's record all you want, but the fact remains that 
}Matalin's fax was right on target, in spite of all of the liberal
}complaints.

Geeeezzz Louise!  You missed the point, my friend.  Matalin's figures
were based on bad data...duplications, splitting fees into subcatagories,
counting fees/taxes that took two lines to detail as two separate items.
It's the purest coincidence that the two figures came out so close.

The point is, the Bush campaign sat down and used every trick it could
to make the list as long as they could push it.  They pushed all the bad
things, ignored any good things (such as tax/fee decreases or repeals),
in an effort to make Clinton look like just another Tax and Spend Liberal.
Now, I don't particularly blame them for the approach, all campaigns
will do that.  But I do blame them for the methods (misrepresentation and
obfuscation), and I am amused when they blast the other side for pushing
the bad things about the Bush administration and ignoring what little good
it has done, since they're guilty of EXACTLY the same.

Apologies are NOT due Matalin.  If Matalin's fax was identical to Clinton's
list in content as well as numerically, an apology would be in order, but
IT IS NOT identical.

Lance

-- 
Lance T. Franklin            +----------------------------------------------+
(ltf@ncmicro.lonestar.org)   | "You want I should bop you with this here    |
NC Microproducts, Inc.       |    Lollipop?!?"                 The Fat Fury |
Richardson, Texas            +----------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 03:43:06 GMT

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>Federal Income Tax IS voluntary.

Another weenie who believes anything he is told emerges from under his
rock...

Let's all wait and have a good laugh while Mikey spends lots of time in
jail and gets all his property confisicated while "voluntarily" not
paying his taxes....

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 03:58:48 GMT

In article <25863@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>|> Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.
>
>>|> Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
>>|> moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??
>
>for the woman, yes, if she realizes what she feels and why, rather than
>just soemthing right about here felt like it was moving. You wouldn't
>call a muscle that spasmed aware, would you?
>
>Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
>			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
>			     Make a U-turn to God.
>The irony is priceless.

How did this thread wind up in the Bush conference?  or Clinton?


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6497 alt.activism.d:3523 talk.abortion:40470
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 4 Oct 92 05:49:48 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem

In article <lcpf1gINN8vo@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com
(Michael Polen) writes:
|Doug Holtsinger) writes:
||> Stan Knight) writes:
||> > Here's a free clue for you: A majority of Americans are pro-choice. 
||> 
||> That depends on how you define "choice". Roughly 70% of Americans
||> support restrictions on abortion.  Most Americans do not support 
||> unrestricted abortion-on-demand as we have today with Roe v. Wade, 
||> nor do they support a ban on all abortions.  
||> 
|Sure makes you wonder why anyone would vote for someone who supports
|the Republican Platform.  After all, the platform disagrees with
|the majority.  Even though the majority can't easily agree on
|what restrictions make sense, they do not believe abortions
|should be outlawed.  On this issue, the Republican party is a fringe
|group.

The same thinking applies to the Democrats who support abortion on demand
and government funding of abortion.  On this issue the Democratic party is
also a fringe group.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush and the liberal conspiracy
Date: 28 Sep 92 00:19:18 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu (BOB HOOKER) writes:
+jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
+>hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
+>>All Rush fans were I work,  hes on once a month,  are what you might call
+>>liberal.  All are for Roe vs. Wade, Clinton,  Civil Rights,  Limited
+>                                                              ^^^^^^^
+>>Government,  Higher Education spending, etc.
+> ^^^^^^^^^^
+> Good one!  Are Conservatives for increased taxes and Afirmative Action
+> in your world?
+
+Considering that Reagan and Bsuh both signed the two greatest tax increases
+in American history and have allowed the national debt to grow so great
+that future high taxes a probably necessary.

Great. We're either gonna vote for someone who signed the greatest tax
increase in history (according to Democrats) or someone who is
advocating the future greatest tax increase in history (according to
Democrats).

+Combined with the fact that the Republicna Convention was stage managed to
+make it apear that there were more women and minorities there then they in
+fact were,  make such a statement seem not to unreasonable.

Oh, come now. Don't tell me that the Democrats are all no longer
liberals! Why wasn't there some speech by Tom Foley or Sam Nunn (not
that he's some left-wing radical) or Richard Gephardt on prime-time?
Have the Democrats really changed their stripes?

All conventions are staged nowadays when it comes to the prime-time
coverage. You won't get the confrontational battles as this country used
to have in the old days.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Taking life pretty seriously. NOT.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:43:55 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <qoojmfs@twilight.wpd.sgi.com>, by coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge):
> Of course, I disagree. The average Joe has been devastated by twelve years
> of oligarchic plutocracy. Implementation of, say, Bush's America 2000 
> educational "reforms" would make that devastation total and nearly
> irreversible. 
> 
There's the O word again.  Next time Dan's on a talk in, lets all dial in
at once and ask him "What's an oligarchy and how do you spell it?"
--
Kent Williams -- williams@cs.uiowa.edu Work(335-4496) Home(338-6053)
There used to be an inflammatory quote here.


Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Date: Sun,  4 Oct 1992 16:14:35 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Distribution: usa

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 4-Oct-92 Re: Walking down to the
stu.. by Ron Bense@oasys.dt.navy. 
> In talk.abortion, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>  
> >The evidence that I've seen suggests that the neocortex ("higher
> >brain") of a newborn infant is not sufficiently developed to possess
> >cognitive thought.  It is only until several months after birth
> >that the infant's brain matures to a point where cognitive thought
> >is possible.  Therefore, if you base your support for abortion rights
> >on the fetus's inability to "think", then you must also condone
> >infanticide.
>  
> Here comes DODie, eating shoeleather like there will be no more made.
> The fact of whether the neo cortex does or does not support higher brain
> functions a second after birth has nothing to do with whether a fetus
> can be killed, and whether that philosophy condones infanticide. Take
> a look at an infant. Take a look at a fetus. See the difference between
> them (namely, the abdominal wall of the woman)? This is what pro-choicers
> base their decisions on. The existance of the woman around the fetus,
> who is being imposed on for her bodily functions to support a fetus.
> An infant is self-supporting, and requires no more than any other person
> in the world. They need food and water and shelter. They don't require
> direct bodily functions of another unique human being for support.

I am in complete agreement with Mr. Holtsinger's analysis.  I support
both abortion rights and have no moral qualms with infanticide for
exactly the reasons he suggests.  On the other hand, infanticide for
undeformed babies probably should be illegal given the availability of
abortion technology.  After birth, the issue of drawing a line between
when it is permissible to kill a child and when it is not is tough, 
(though primative societies have achieved acceptable answers.)  Since
any line is arbitrary, a well-defined line is desirable.  Birth has the
advantage of the sharp distinction between inside the women and outside
the women. 

In constrast, Mr. Bense's suggestion that it is ok to kill the
baby/infant because of its location seems absurd.  He bases this on the
claim that infants don't need the direct support of another person's
bodily functions.  A nine month old fetus doesn't need the support
either.  A fetes' ninth month in the womb is just something desirable
for the fetus in pre-medical societies.

Michael Loomis
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5972 alt.politics.bush:6861 alt.politics.clinton:7414 talk.politics.misc:48121 alt.politics.elections:14384
From: William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.)
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: 6 Oct 92 22:26:43 GMT
 <1992Oct3.030602.952@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> 
 <ld0okmINN8b6@spim.mti.sgi.com>  <1992Oct6.170405.6878@nwnexus.WA.COM>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Oct6.170405.6878@nwnexus.WA.COM>
jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

> There is no third alternative yet.
> Come up with one and we'll discuss it.

How about ABSTINENCE? (No, I forgot, that's a dirty word around
here!...)

-------------------------------------------------------------
William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
-- Ronald Reagan
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:43:57 GMT

In article <1992Oct05.131339.28295@stiatl.salestech.com>, kwh@stiatl.salestech.com (Kurt Hoyt) writes:
> detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
> 
> 
> >     Rep. Bob Dornan has been speaking on C-Span in the House
> >live concerning Bill Clinton and his anti-war, anti-Vietnam
> >protests during his college days.
> 
> >    Most specificly, in 1970, Bill Clinton was invited to go
> >to Moscow to be part of the so called "Peace Movement".  During
> >this time period, an American in the former Soviet Union had to
> >be invited by the Communist govt., and they had to have prior
> >knowledge or provide instruction on where he may travel along
> >with what he may say while in the former Soviet Union.
> 
> >     This is the same Bill Clinton who, while at Oxford, sought
> >information on either obtaining dual citizenship or obtaining
> >British citizenship.
> 
> I am not a Clinton supporter. However, this latest "story" about Clinton's
> trip to Moscow 22 years ago is getting me ticked off at the Republicans and
> the Bush campaign. Why? Because this seems so clearly to be a desperation
> move by a campaign that now thinks it can't win on the issues so it must do
> all it can to discredit the man and deflect attention from the substance of
> the election. This really saddens me. As the election draws closer, Bush
> doesn't focus on the idiocy of Clinton's "Putting People First" (which it
> doesn't), but on what may or may not have happened when Clinton was the
> guest of a government which no longer exists. Get real! This strategy is not
> only going to lose the White House but forever lose the Senate and House of
> Representative to more of the tax and spend thieves than ever before.
> 
I'd say it *has* to be considered to an extent.  This man is poised to
assume the highest office in the land, and be the commander in chief
of the most potent military capability on the globe.  And now we learn
that this was no Moscow Express quickie, but a 40-day excursion to 
include a country that at the time was the most dangerous, powerful, and 
virulent opponent of the United States at the height of the cold
war.  It *damn* well matters what a candidate for President did in
this regard back in that era, vis-a-vis the policies of his government
at the time. 

"Truth will out!" 

                                                 H.R. Holm
*comment my own, standard disclaimers;
 post replies to the newsgroup, please*

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5887 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5932
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Interesting Clinton Supporters
Distribution: usa,na
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (9/19/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 22 Sep 92 21:02:49 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Sep22.172200.20785@usl.edu> mxa2677@usl.edu (Axelrod Michael) writes:
> In article <nate.591@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> >tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
> >>kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> >>>Crowe was a miserable excuse for an Admiral; he wasn't very good as CNO,
> >>>and he was positively AWFUL as Chairman of the JCS. I was on active duty
> >>>in the Navy during his tenure; I'm afraid his opinions don't carry much
> >>>weight with me.
>
> >    I'm kind of curious what qualities (or lack thereof) Ken would say make
> >Crowe such a poor officer.
>
> >Nathan Engle 		       Software Juggler
> >Psychology Department	       Indiana University
> >nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
>
> I heard Rush say that Crowe was a poor officer last night on his TV show.
> With Rush's outstanding military record, we know that it must be the truth.
>

I heard Bush interviewed on Rush's radio show that same day.  Almost
everything Rush said on TV that night was EXACTLY what Bush said.
Exactly.  Now, with that in mind...

Rush asked Bush on the radio about the Crowe endorsement.  Bush said
that Crowe was one of those who testified to the senate before the
Gulf War - against Bush' proposals.  He told the committee that the
war would fail, the plan was stupid, we were starting another VietNam,
etc.

And Crowe ended up being proven totally wrong.	YOu might say he
ate crow :)

Anyone want to flame Bush's military service record now?

>
> --
> Michael J. Axelrod
> mikey@usl.edu
> --

--
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.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S TAX LIST(S)
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 15:46:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.001742.16197@oracle.us.oracle.com>
mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
 
>
>10. Expanded IRS authority in taxing corporations
>
>Again, explain - how is this a tax increase?
>
In exactly the same way that lengthening the dog racing season is a tax
increase.
>
>Slick's a liar and so are the people who work for him, but we all know
>that by now anyway.
>
If Clinton is a liar, then Bush is also a liar, and in the same way.  I
agree, this tax list is bogus.  So was Bush's list.  This method of
counting taxes was developed by the Bush campaign in order to make a
campaign charge against Clinton.  Now you object when the Clinton
campaign turns the tables.
 
Wouldn't it have been better for everybody if the Bush campaign had
stuck to real issues instead of dreaming up this stupid list idea in
the first place?
 
Jim McMaster
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush and the liberal conspiracy
Date: 28 Sep 92 14:45:40 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:

>In article <1992Sep26.144824.10503@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip
>Switzer) writes:
>> 
>> In article <nate.604@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> >jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>> >>hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>> >>>All Rush fans were I work,  hes on once a month,  are what you might call
>> >>>liberal.  All are for Roe vs. Wade, Clinton,  Civil Rights,  Limited
>> >>                                                              ^^^^^^^
>> >>>Government,  Higher Education spending, etc.
>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^
>> >
>> >>Good one!  Are Conservatives for increased taxes and Afirmative Action
>> >>in your world?
>> >
>> >    Probably not, though I can't speak for Bob. It may be, however, that 
>> >the liberals in "his world" defy the Rush Limbaugh description of the 
>> >"typical liberal". 
>> >
>> 
>> Well, there you go again, trying to undermine our perfectly OK
>> stereotypes!  But seriously...  I can accept a lot of waffling on many
>> fringe positions, but to say that a basic tenet of liberalism is
>> "limited government" defies all attempts to define the liberal
>> position. 
>> 
>> While most liberals may not say outright that they want a big
>> government, the policies they advocate *do* result in big government.
>> This type of denial is typical of Americans in general, nowadays. 
>> We want to have lower taxes and no public debt, but also want to keep
>> all our handouts.

>Well conservative republicans have pushed legislation of drugs,  ending
>abortion rights,  limiting the civil rights of accused when facing trial. 
>Many policies which have resulted in more government.

Will you please explain how these examples promote an increase in the
government?  *Programs* increase the size of the government, not laws
(unless they mandate some policy which will have to be regualted).

>Now the Republicans are makingh Family Values,  and the promotion by the
>Federal government of a certain lifestyle.   This is limited government.  

Yeah, I can see where a return to family VALUES (notice the emphasis) 
will increase the size of the government.
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: When did human life begin??? Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 08:38:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes ...
> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) says:
>
>>>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.
>
>>Human life began millions, possibly billions of years ago.  Please subscribe
>>to the newsgroup talk.origins for more details.
>
>I don't understand why that question always gets this answer.  I understand
>the point, but why not answer the -intended- question?  Is this just another
>semantics argument, or what?

Because saying that embryologists say that a human life begins at conception
isn't particularly useful.  It is saying that a human life is that which
begins at conception because a human life begins at conception.  If you're
just going to _define_ a human life to begin at conception, then you might
_define_ with just as much validity a human life to begin at birth.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby