HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Free at last!!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University Cyclotron Facility, Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  world
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:09:19 GMT

In article <CTDONATH.93Jan22122534@mothra.syr.EDU>, ctdonath@mothra.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath) writes...
> 
>I spent nearly 15 years developing skills, doing much of the study outside
>the classroom & on my own time, to land a job which paid a decent wage.
>Is it right, then, for the government to take 33% of my hard-earned wages
>and distribute them to people who choose not to work (and who receive 
>$300/week to not work!!!), and to beaurocrats whose goal is to increase
>the number of people working under them??!! And all this happened under
>a _conservative_ president! "I feel your pain" Clinton IS GOING TO 
>TAKE EVEN MORE AWAY FROM ME AND GIVE IT TO MORE PEOPLE WHO DON'T DESERVE IT!!!
>ISN'T THAT _CRIMINAL_???!!!?!? But of course, anything can be rationalized...

I know how you feel.  I'm in the same boat.

Maybe what we need in this country is a good old-fashioned
nationwide tax-revolt!

Sort of a large-scale Boston Tea Party...

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: ray.rooney@satalink.com (Ray Rooney) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gas Tax (was Re: Elvis has entered the building..)
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:09:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Datamax/Satalink Connection * Ivyland, PA (215) 443-9434
Reply-To: ray.rooney@satalink.com (Ray Rooney) 

To: paul@hsh.com

HS>> The problem with the gas tax is that one thing they cry about doing with i
HS>> is improving mass transit.  Well, whoop te do...  Mass transit isn't going
HS>> do much for us out on the prairies, not everyone has the misfortune to liv
HS>> New York City or LA.  (Not just here, how about Arkansas?)  A gas tax is g
HS>> to hit one hell of a lot of people hard that have to use gas just to survi

HS>And, as you say, fat lotta good that does for those of us in the sticks /
HS>boonies / wilderness, defined as 'not in a major city'.  Gee, guess I could
HS>walk to the bus station -- hell, it's only six miles...

I still remember the last couple of gas crises. Fuel prices shot up and
the transit companies and railroads suffered too. We lost most of our
service out where I lived. The transit authority said the fuel prices
were to blame.

When we asked (at a community meeting) what we were supposed to do, the
rep from the city said, "Get bicycles."  (Our neighborhood was not
considered P.C.)

Somehow, I have a feeling of deja vu...

 * SLMR 2.1a * Peace through cluster bombing.
                                                                               
Organization: Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:00:41 -0500 
From: James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Double Standards

Of all the places and people to have a good arguement pointed out by,
this shocked me most. Micheal Kinsely on Crossfire (I usually don't
bother to watch the show) actually asked a pointed question to the Zoe
Baird supporter from the Clinton Administration about whether or not
there was a double standard on what an appointee could get away with in
the way of a spotted past, especially after John Towers had every speck
of dust on his record dug out to crucify him with (my own words mind you
I don't have a transcript). The best part of the exchange was that the
Baird supporter completely avoided the subject of the question (John
Tower) and went after some faults of Ginsburg. Seems to like a great
nominee for cheap evasions of the month (granted outdoing Slick-Willie
himself would be mighty tricky). I was very impressed with Mr. Kinsely
for this apt and thoughtful question. Actually I have even heard Rush
complement the intellegence, character, and honesty of Kinsely, and this
really leads me to believe it (though granted I would rather be boiled
in oil that support most of his positions). Well one does have other
things to do, see ya.
James Stepanek
esp
Graduate Student 
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
University of Pittsburgh
Disclaimer : If Pitt knew I still used my CMU account they probably
wouldn't understand. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15101 alt.politics.clinton:21163 alt.politics.bush:16345 alt.politics.homosexuality:10248
From: daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk (Dave Stow)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Gay rights vs. homophobe rights? (was Re: God is intolerant of sin!)
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:03:26 GMT
Organization: Department of Computing at Lancaster University, UK.

In article <1jpiecINNeuv@hp-col.col.hp.com> smithw@col.hp.com (Walter Smith) writes:
>challenging my irrational beliefs".  To you they seem irrational,
>so they must be, eh?  What's that about open-mindedness?  Oh, it's 
>only for those who agree with you, I see.  

Nope - rational beliefs are ones founded on good sense and lack of
prejudice. They are ones that are come to after a thought and meditation.

and after many years thought and meditation on this matter I have to
say that the party-line Christian viewpoint that homsexuality is immoral
is simply wrong, and its time they changed it.

>are.  Try hopping over to soc.religion.christian. The only 

s.r.c.  heh heh - as a regular reader it strikes me that the arguement
over there, (allowed to surface about once every six months), has
the same polarisation of people who cannot see beyond the end of their
grotty translation of the bible, and those who have thought about it
a bit and come up with a better answer than you.

Dave

--- daves@comp.lancs.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------
| Will you still suck me,    | #include <std.disclaimer.h>                    |
| tie me up and fuck me?     |                             ** Beard rides **  |
| When I'm 64...             | Whisky, Sex and Blues...                       |
---------------------------------------------- B5(6.5) f- t- g+ k+ s+ e r p ---
From: roderir@hobo.ECE.ORST.EDU (richard roderick)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Draft-Dodging Rush?
Date: 27 Jan 1993 23:43:50 GMT
Organization: ECE Dept.,OSU,Corvallis
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hobo.ece.orst.edu

In article <mwalker-260193162903@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:
>commander-in-chiefs. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind as an example.

When I think of Bill Clinton, Abraham Lincoln does not come to mind.
You are correct though. Military history is not required. I suppose
I implied that because he dodged the draft he shoudln't be president.
Please excuse me for that. It is the combination of several things
as to why he should not be president. Now as for the military, his
main problem right now is that he thinks he knows what is best for
the military and he has little or no experience with it!

>You must listen to Rush a lot, 'cause you sure seem confident in spouting
>off questionable ideas.

Why are you slandering me?
No I don't listen to Rush a lot.
I think Rush has a lot of things right though.

Well, I hope we can now discuss the issue rather then slandering
eachother.

Richard A. Roderick
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: winter@cwis.unomaha.edu (Robert Winter)
Subject: Re: ZOE BAIRD: ATTORNEY GEN.
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:32:21 GMT

patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy) writes:

>Paul S Galvanek writes:

>	[stuff deleted about ed meese and paul's problem with]
>	[clintonians who drudge up the past...               ]
>> 
>> With that in mind tell us now, why is a person who broke the law, a lawyer
>> who's best excuse is "I didn't know the law", why is that person about 
>> to be confirmed by the Senate as AG without so much as hiccup at her 
>> confirmation hearing? 
>> 
>	clearly it is a case of --no blood, no foul--  the
>	situation zoe finds herself in is commonplace among
>	the relatively well-to-do [a class i am unfortunately
>	not a member of!]...  the immigration laws and tax laws
>	in this area are confusing at best--  see, for example,
>	the irs's reluctance in enforcing these laws and the
>	fact that *violators* are simply told to pay back taxes
>	and NOT prosecuted.  zoe has done this... she has paid
>	back taxes.  in addition, and beyond what the majority
>	of people caught do, zoe has paid a fine to the immigration
>	service.  as orrin hatch has already pointed out, the 
>	paying of the fine should be the final step.

>	the infraction we speak of is along the lines of speeding;
>	it is not a major crime and shouldn't interfere with her
>	enforcement of the Law_of_the_Land(tm) and, if anything,
>	make her more conscious in her dealings with illegal aliens...

>	are you prepared to throw out an otherwise qualified candidate
>	for attorney general and have herr slick willie enter a
>	far left liberal in her stead??!   i thought not.

     If we can have a draft dodger for Commander-in-Chief, we can have a
law-breaker for Attorney General.  The American people, 43% of those who
voted, have decided they want change, they shouldn't feel cheated now to
find they have it.  

Bob Winter                The problem with Democracy is that people
winter@cwis.unomaha.edu   get the government they deserve. 




Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Clinton break tax (and other) promise(s)
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:03:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.185634.19982@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1jfqhlINNrgk@stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu> kens@psc.lsa.umich.edu (Ken Small) writes:
>>Linda Ruoff (lruoff@cwis.unomaha.edu) wrote:
>>
>>
>>: If Bush is a liar, then so is Clinton.
>>
>>This isn't obvious?  These men are politicians!
>
>So much for those who voted for a change.
>
>Ted
>
>-- 
>So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
>too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
>oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
>by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees

Maybe you are way off in the boonies but Clinton is going to 
eliminate the gay question in the application for the military and
he will be working on the order to ban discrimination in the Military
permanently.....At least that is what was said in the U.S.A. Today and
the Oregonian.  

So guess some of you out there are LIARS and Lie spreaders.......

Yeah Prez. Bil!!!


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15363 alt.sex:43395
From: cscdc@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Dan Carpenter)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Date: 27 Jan 1993 18:32:06 -0600
Organization: Educational Computing Network
NNTP-Posting-Host: uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

In article <1993Jan27.115730.11492@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman) writes:
>In article <john.728106825@misty> John R. Moore, john@anasazi.com writes:
>>00mlschmalz@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu writes:

>>
>>]In article <john.727819560@misty>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
>>
>>]> :) :) :) (only half in smiles.... this shows the idiocy of creating
>>]> preferencebased governmentally recognized groups)
>>]> John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253 
>(6029519326)
>
>Translation: Some heterosexuals feel that their position is morally superior
>to gays (i.e. "special") and, therefore, they are morally justified to
>discriminate against them with regards to such things as employment and
>housing opportunities.  Clear now?

I'm Hetrosexual, but I don't think I am "Morally Superior", just
"Morally Right".  I couldn't care less what the "Queers" do, as long as
they don't infringe on my right to feel and think the way I want, to
restrict what I can or can not do separate from them.  Let's respect
each other as  "Humans" and our funcional needs separate from Sexual
choice, and you can go your direction and We can go ours.  Don't go
throwing laws around if I or any other Hetro doesn't want to knowingly
work next to you, rent to you, or serve in the military next to you.



It is said that Homosexuality is an "Alternate Life Style"; Fine, let me
be with my "Traditional Life Style".   I'm not trying to *force* my TLS
on you, after all I didn't give a sh*t until you 'Alternates' start
raising hell about rights.  Keep your distance, let me be, and don't
step on MY rights, and you (gays) can plug each others butts for
eternity, for all I care.
From: gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: honest question
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:46:57 GMT
Reply-To: gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson)
Organization: BNR, Inc.


No, He thought the analogy was flawed.  He (Rush) went on to describe why the
situations are different.

gaj
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14778 alt.sex:42808 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13426 alt.politics.correct:6316 alt.politics.equality:135 alt.politics.homosexuality:10006 talk.abortion:57267 alt.politics.clinton:20885
From: gadson@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.sex,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: GayKilling question
Date: 21 Jan 1993 21:31 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <C1722E.MtA@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes...
| 
|>When sentencing time comes for the culprits, the sentence
|>should reflect what they did, not who they did it to..
| 
|Boy, that's tellin' em!  Like these ridiculous laws about the
|sentencing of people who attempt to kill the President.  I mean, why
|should *his* lifestyle choice be considered more important than
|*mine*?  Let's judge people on the basis of who they are, not what
|they do!  etc., etc.

	So, I don't understand.  Are you saying that we should or
shouldn't consider some people more or less important that others, 
and if we should, on what should this be based, who they are or what
they do?

Gadson
       ______________________
      |   ______    ______   |
      |__|   ___|__|___   |__|                 
        __   \        /__    __ 
        /\    \      /  |\  /|  
       /__\    \    /   | \/ |  
      /    \    \  /    |    |  
     --    --   |\/|   --    --
             ___|  |___
            |__________|



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: Subsidizing porn?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 21:34:10 GMT

In article <1938@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>: Personally, I agree with Ken Barnes; let's just abolish the NEA. Too often
>: we've seen that subsidized art is BAD art, whether sexually explicit or
>: not. 
>: 
>: Sexually explicit art, like every other genre of art, complies with
>: Sturgeon's Law; i.e., "90% of everything is crap." The 10% that's NOT crap
>: will pay for itself, in ticket sales or whatever; why should we support
>: the 90% that IS crap? 
>: 
>: Ken Mitchell
>: kmitche@eis.calstate.ed
>
>I tend to agree with your assertion that 90% of everything is crap;
>however, just as the good 10% cannot necessarily be found among 
>funded art, it also cannot necessarily be found among popular art.
>The government is apt to fund crap, and people are apt to buy crap.
>Don't know what the solution to this is, but the Glorious Market 
>doesn't, in general, produce better art than government funding.
>
>Bill
>

The solution is to not use public funds to support something is does
not NEED to be federally financed.  Some things MUST be financed
by everyone, but that list of things is very small.  If people WANT
to buy crap, fine, but let's not force them by using their (OUR)
tax dollars.  You may argue then that our education system and
defense are crap too, but I think you have a much better case for
arguing that those two are part of the small list of things we
must federally fund.  I'm sure there are those that disagree, but...
I fail to see how funding the NEA or "art" can be considered something
that our country MUST do.

-----
Smaller Government!  Fewer Politicians!  A return to a Free Market Economy!
If Democrats and Republicans can't do it...let's get someone who can!


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Rush Military Record
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:06:32 GMT

keithp@octel.com (Keith Perrin) writes:
] 
] So it starts already. Its amazing to me that the same people 
] who burnt the American flag, and spit on U.S. troops in the 
] late 60s and 70s are the same liberals who claimed that they
] were really freedom loving Americans in the 80s, and now  
] these COWARDS feel that its all right to make vet sacrifices
] the butt of their sarcastic jokes again. Listen closely 
] Cousin Slick. That crap doesn't fly anymore.
] 
] KLP

Do you have a point to make?

Or are we gonna play, "Look at my DD214" game first?

ciao
drieux



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.religion.misc
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:49:24 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.173335.11099@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:

>In article <C19Kto.7D9@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>>>gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>>>
>>>> This is a typical example of the circularity we so often see in such
>>>> arguments, in fact.  How do we know the prohibition belongs to the
>>>> "moral" rather than the "ceremonial" law?  
>>
>>"Everybody knows it" is not an acceptable answer.
>
>But it seems that "It is the right thing to do" is an acceptable one.

In this context, it doesn't even make sense.  What *are* you talking
about, Bert?

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:15348 talk.abortion:58338
From: creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:32:08 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1993Jan27.010754.16914@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>And what's wrong with having fun (yes, fun)? And why be so prissy
>about sex and not about anything else? So one can gorge oneself on
>tasty pastries (say), with that not being a sin? After all, it's
>self-gratification, isn't it?

   As a matter of fact, gluttony _is_ a sin.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: steven.fischer@idcbbs.com (Steven Fischer) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: "Requiem" for the Common Man
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:50:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: IDC BBS - Alameda, CA - 510-865-7115
Reply-To: steven.fischer@idcbbs.com (Steven Fischer) 

From: stevenfischer@idcbbs.com

>Apparently the half of Rush's brain that is tied behind his back contains
>the correct title for the Aaron Copland piece used for the Clinton
>whoop-de-doos. RL has repeatedly and without any evident sarcasm or other
>overt reference referred to it as "Requiem for the Common Man." It is
>"Fanfare for..." Think about it: why would the Olympics want to use funeral
>music as a theme? Does Rush remind anyone else of a right-wing Mort Sahl
>(who is sadly unfunny these days)...Gene

If you are a regular listener you  would  have  heard  a  call  on  the 
Thursday  following  the  inaguration when a woman called and corrected 
him, hence he recognized his error.  But in doing so  happened  upon  a 
bit of irony in the election of Slick Willy.  A requiem as in a funeral 
dirge is quite humorous considering the "crawfishing" on the issue of a 
middle  class  tax cut and today's revelation from the White House that 
those who elected him didn't actually say that they didn't want  a  tax 
increase.
---
 . KingQWK 1.05 # 37 . ........  Day #7 of America Held Hostage  ........                         
                                                                         
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chall@eco.twg.com (Charles Don Hall)
Subject: Re: Draft-Dodging Rush?
Organization: The Wollongong Group (East Coast Operations)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 17:45:20 GMT

In <21828@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:

>In article <93024.120541KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>>Never mind that National Guardsmen were eligible to be sent to war.  Silly
>>little facts like that ruin an otherwise decent point, don't they?

>Quayle was assigned to an administrative company that would never have been 
>called up for vietnam, as it was needed in Indiana. That he was put into that
>company (which had no slots open) rather than into another company that could
>have conceivably been called to Vietnam (like the one that had 11 slots open)
>is the basis of the argument for calling Quayle a draft-dodger.

You've got this backwards. Most of the Guard units had all their 
slots filled, but a few had openings. These were "elite" units,
for people with special qualifications. Now, if you or I had
tried to join the Guard back then, we would have been told,
"Sorry, all slots are filled." On the other hand, Quayl [sic] 
had the proper qualifications, so it was possible for him to join 
one of the elite units.

["Special Qualifications" is a Secret Code Phrase for "Rich Parents",
but you knew that already.]

Anyway, your main point was correct. Dan Quayl's [sic] unit would
never have been sent to Vietnam, because it was just too elite.

>Silly facts? Why don't you try them sometime?

>Dan
-- 

===========================================================
Charles Don Hall, Licensed Philosopher  (chall@eco.twg.com)
===========================================================
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh