HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Hyperbole about Clarence Thomas
Date: 30 Sep 92 08:38:21 GMT
 <1992Sep24.155829.12779@webo.dg.com>  <cortez.717590771@milton>
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage) writes:

> >Now, let's try a hypothetical situation.  I am (in this scenario) a soldier in
> >the United States Army.  The 3rd amendment says, in part, that "No Soldier
> >shall, in times of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of
> >the owner..."  I break into your house, tie you up, and spend a week there,
> >sleeping and eating, and watching your television, and reading your books.  When
> >the police comes, I am certainly guilty of many crimes, but does this need to
> >go to the Supreme court on the grounds of your 3rd amendment rights being 
> >violated?  No, because the Bill of Rights are there for the protection of the
> >people against abuses by the government, and there is no government action
> >involved here.  The government as a whole cannot always be held responsible for
> >every action of every employee, any more than the president of IBM would go
> >to jail for an IBM employee cheating on his income taxex.
> 
> >So are the guards who beat the prisoner guilty of crimes?  Yes.
> >Were the prisoner's 8th amendment rights violated?  Not unless the guards actions
> >were either supported, or instigated, by the government, that is, not unless
> >this was considered standard operating procedure in this prison.  Is there
> >any evidence that this was the case?  In the absence of evidence to this
> >effect, it is difficult to fault Thomas's and Scalia's logic. 

I disagree with your analysis.  It is not required that actions by
government employees be "standard operating procedure" in order for
constitutional issues to be raised.  For example, if two policeman beat
a confession out of you and that confession is used as evidence in your
trial, your fifth amendment rights have been abridged, regardless of
whether the police chief fires the two police officers and bakes you a
birthday cake.

Additionally, your entire point is irrelevant.  The thrust of Thomas's
dissent was not that the guards were not following standard procedure,
but rather that the guards actions were not part of the sentencing. 
According to Thomas's reasoning, there would still be no eighth
amendment concerns even if all guards routinely tortured prisoners, as
part of prison policy.

Note: Follow-ups have been redirected to exclude alt.fan.dan-quayle.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:04:33 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Sep28.162205.26063@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <BvAH8F.Fxz@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>|> >Zeroing the deficit does not get rid of the debt, it just stops the 
>|> >debt from getting bigger.
>|> 
>|>    This isn't true.  Part of the budget is payments on current debt,
>|>    so a balanced budget would still be paying down debt, and over time 
>|>    the national debt would be paid off.    A "balanced budget" simply
>|>    means that your revenues match your disbursements.   That some of
>|>    those disbursements are for exiting debt is immaterial.
>
>	Correct, but misleading. The National Debt is typically in the 
>form of 30 year treasury bonds, so the only piece of the debt being paid
>off is the part that is 30 years old, or the part that was sold on shorter
>terms. Since most (3/4) of the debt is not 12 years old, you still have
>a $210B deficit this year, which more then offsets the small amount of
>debt repayment. Net result: the debt is still growing.
   
   I don't think you understood my point.   The original posting claimed
   that a balanced budget doesn't get rid of the national debt.

   My point is that if you had a balanced budget (i.e., no deficit) 
   then you wouldn't need to issue new debt, and over time the existing
   debt would be retired.  As you say, it would take 30 years to do
   this if they didn't call in some of that debt.  But also note that
   the long bond IS callable.   

   So the point is that if you had a balanced budget you would in time 
   eliminate the debt, and every year a smaller and smaller portion of
   the budget would be needed for debt service.

   The trick is to run without a deficit and to avoid the temptation
   to issue new debt, although I'd be willing to make an exception
   to refinance old debt if the taxpayers saved money in the process.


---peter








Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Followup-To: talk.abortion 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: Followups set to *talk.abortion* only! 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 23:51:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.070107.23902@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>II think you understand at least part of what I've been trying to say.

Simon, I used to *BE* a pro-moderate.  I've already gone through most,
if not all the arguments you're presenting.

>Perhaps there are valid reason for abortion, although I'm against it.

Fine.  If you're against having abortions, then don't have one.

>But those reasons must be important, and other options should be examined
>as well.

Define "important".  Define "other options". Define "should be".  Define
"examined".

Now tell me why the women in my life have to live according to *YOUR*
expectations.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=National Coming Out Day is Oct 11th, 1992. Closets Are A Place To Put Clothes=
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: The World
	<mykes.0e81@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
	<1992Sep28.034306.26893@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 06:36:16 GMT


From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
>>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....

Of course income tax is voluntary, since income is voluntary.

--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: letter to Rush, what is a liberal?
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:38:45 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

> Thomas Jefferson plagerized John Locke (not our John Locke on the Net)
> when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.

Thanks for maintaining the distinction. You'd think it would be fun to
have gangs of college girls chasing you through public screaming for you
to autograph their copy of "Social Contract," but it gets very old.

John Locke
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush is a Mass Murderer 
From: ajpoulias@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (The user from HELL!)
Date: 26 Sep 92 01:29:48 -0500
Followup-To: alt.politics.clinton
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

In article <1992Sep21.214807.10125@tygra.Michigan.COM>, jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:

	[somewhat rational discussion removed]
  
> George Bush is directly responsible for the death of up to 250,000
> people, including women and children (The ones that Barbara Bush
> says we should "nurture and love", or was she only talking about
> white, christian, American children??). 
>  
> George Bush is a mass murderer and couldn't care less about you or
> I or anyone else except his rich friends. The war indicated just how
> far he would go to help his buddies. He is dangerous as are all other
> Republicans. Look, Bush is considered a MODERATE CONSERVATIVE and
> see how heinous he acted. Better hope Quayle never gets into the White
> House - he is much farther to the right.
>  
> It is imperative that you vote for Clinton/Gore. Even though some of
> their policies aren't the best that we can get, we MUST vote this
> mass-murderer out of office on 3-Nov.
>  
> Clinton/Gore in '92
> We cannot survive another 4 years of Bush. 

	Wow, I guess the saying "When everyone is out to get you, paranoia
is just good thinking" is appropriate here....."He is dangerous as are all
other Republicans."  Do you REALLY believe this?  If so, some nice men
with a funny looking jacket will soon be paying you a visit.

	Just my $.02 (which I'm sure "president Clinton" would figure some
way of taxing)

			ajpoulias@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 01:59:22 GMT

In article <ld0okmINN8b6@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>Simon E. Booth) writes:
>|> 
>|> I have one solution, and I'll get nuclear flamed for it, but what is
>|> wrong with abstinence as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
>|> BTW--anyone notice that I've kept my postings on the level, without the
>|> sarcasm of the replies I get???

My husband wouldn't like it is an objection that pops into my mind.
:-)

One issue that the anti-abortion folks really are unwilling to deal
with is that many of the women who seek to terminate pregnancies
are literally not in any economic shape to continue them. There is
a great deal of handwaving at 'forcing employers' to provide unpaid
leave, but no real help with expenses and childcare. Many women work
at jobs that don't offer health benefits.To go on welfare would often cause them to have to evict their husbands.
.



-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6134 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6031
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Taxing the Rich (was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate)
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:38:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <LARRY.92Sep28081726@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>In article <1992Sep22.182122.6964@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>   In article <AWERLING.92Sep18203048@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>
>So? No one is demanding ALL the money from the rich. They just want the
>rich to pay a fair, reasonable share of taxes. If the middle class has to 
>pay ever increasing taxes, then why shouldn't the wealthy also (who seem to
>have an inordinate amount of political and legal power anyway)? I'm not
>arguing the justification for increasing taxes, I'm arguing that we all
>should bear our tax burdens with some degree of equity. When Grandma ends
>up paying a larger percentage of her retirement income to taxes than a large,
>profitable corporation, something is wrong.

Equity....and again, "Fairness is a Flat Tax!"

======================================================
 Teddy Kalivoda  ------------> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu 
   University of GA Computing & Network Services       
     Inst.of Higher Education, UGA, Athens, Georgia               
=====================================================                                                                          
	"The sleep of reason gives rise to monsters"
				        (Goya, Caprichos)
From: kellyb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:04:08 GMT
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science, New Haven, CT

In article <1992Oct6.085420.23591@netcom.com>, mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
> In article <1992Oct05.131339.28295@stiatl.salestech.com> kwh@stiatl.salestech.com (Kurt Hoyt) writes:
>>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.
> 
> "Forever" is a long time.  I suspect that after four years of
> unrestrained rape and pillage of the economy by a government
> under total Democrat control, that in 1996 a Democrat will
> be as hard to find as a Communist in Moscow.
> 
> Assuming, of course, that there's anything left unstolen.
> Mighty big assumption.  
> 
> Re: These  rumors about Clinton having tried to switch his citizenship
> -- Just the other day, Rush said this was a rumor being circulated by
> Clinton's campaign.  The motive is presumably to let the Republicans
> pick it up and run with it, and then show the proof that the rumor is
> not true, making the Republicans look like they're making up dirt.
> 
Making up dirt,look like,only someone with Limbaugh's mentality could come
up with that one.
  
                        LIMBAUGH--NORTH 96
                      VOTE FOR STUPIDITY> 
> -- 
> Mike Van Pelt                                When guns are outlawed,
> mvp@netcom.com                               only Carl Rowan will have guns.
> mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: a Misogynist Boor?
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:48:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.160650.1477@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <mlbruce.717736922@husc8> mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:

>Ditto. 

	So you _agree_ with my assessment of Rush Limbaugh?

>=============================================================================
>-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
                             ^^^^
                             Time to get deborged, buster!

	I think I must modify my comments slightly. It seems to me
that Rush Limbaugh is the sort of misogynist who objects to seriously
assertive women, though not to submissive or passive or servile or
objectified ones.

	Consider his objection to feminism that it makes opportunities
for relatively unattractive women, something he makes into a great
catastrophe. This is from someone who hardly looks like an Adonis.

	He also snickers that all feminists are lesbians, and claims
to wonder why they are all "pro-abortion", when they supposedly don't
have sex with men anyway.

	I'm sure that there is one type of assertive woman that he
would be more to make exception for: an assertive right-wing woman
like Phyllis Schlafly. I think in his mind, an assertive woman is good
when she asserts that women have no right to be assertive.

/Loren
From: jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:21:59 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Sep30.162034.21150@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
)In article <20776@plains.NoDak.edu> jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen) writes:
)>AND, no where in nature is abortion practiced.  (some eat their
)>young), BUT there is NO abortion.
)
)Sorry, Lee, but this is not true.
)
)Example: When a new stallion takes over a herd, it will often kick the
)mares impregnated by the previous stallion until they abort.
)
)Zebras are another type of animal that will abort their young, under 
)similar circumstances.

Well, does the Zebra have a choice?  I mean, the women of this country of
don't go around and have doctors hit them until they abort 'naturally'

NATURALLY, animals don't abort their young.  Miscarriages are another thing,
but we're talking about ABORTION.  Killing of INNOCENT CHILDREN!!!

-Lee.

-- 
IREALLYHATEBORDERSBECAUSETHEYMAKEEVERYTHINGLOOKMESSYANDCLUTTERED
(:                       Lee Jorgensen                        :)
(:            Internet: jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu             :)
DERETTULCDNAYSSEMKOOLGNIHTYREVEEKAMYEHTESUACEBSREDROBETAHYLLAERI
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Yet another cheap squabble about semantics
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 22:57:45 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep30.213134.18599@sniap.mchp.sni.de>  frank@D012S436.sniap.mchp.sni.de (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:

[knocking down of strawmen deleted]

> I'm just trying to establish the circumstances where it's O.K. for me to say
> "a fetus is worthy of dignity and respect", and what criteria I have to meet
> before I can say that without having to listen to crap like "MOST PRO-LIFERS...",
> you know?

You don't have to meet any criteria to express an opinion.  If you want
to force other people who don't share your beliefs to abide by your
beliefs, then the situation changes.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6170 alt.politics.bush:7125 alt.politics.clinton:7729 alt.politics.elections:14614 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6050 talk.politics.misc:48535
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: More deception from your hero, not mine
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:41:40 GMT
Organization: Chevron

For all you Rush lunatics out there:  Is Rush stupid, or is he 
just deceptive?

On today's show, he spouted off about how poor George is being 
unjustly hurt by this debate fiasco.  He asked "Who is on this
*bipartisan* (slimy sarcasm omitted) debate commission.  
[Irrational diatribe about overpaid, underworked commission 
members omitted]"  Do any of you think that Rush would fail to
check the names of the committee?  I guarantee he's looked into
it and found that it doesn't include Sen. Metzenbaum, Anita Hill
or Ted Kennedy, or he would have been quick to mention it.  
Discriminating Rush listeners have to realize that his reluctance
to state the names of this committee is because he can find no
fault with the membership.  Either that, or Rush is too stupid
to check up on the facts, something I don't believe.

Real conservatives -- great, need more of them.  Limbaugh's, Robertson's
and Buchanon's; go find somewhere to spend the next four years, because
I (and quite a few people I know) refuse to vote for any party that
embraces you.

-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: When did human life begin???  Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Summary: Let's find out... 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 02:20:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.201833.26324@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>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.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
= "I warned Larry about such intellectually dishonest posting."               =
=    -- Peter Nyikos in article <nyikos.717105984@milo.math.scarolina.edu>    =
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:33:49 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote (in article <1992Oct3.030602.952@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>):
>Why is it that when someone says that they are pro-choice they staunchly
>support abortion and refuse to discuss alternatives??

"I think EVERY WOMAN should have an ABORTION!  Yeah, let's pass a law
requiring women to REPORT their PREGNANCIES, then make them all have
an ABORTION no matter WHAT the circumstances!"

That's 'pro-abortion'.  I've never heard anybody advocating it.

I'm pro-choice.  I've discussed alternatives an awful lot, and I'd
prefer if all these alternatives were tried before abortion, which, in
my opinion, is a last resort.

Why is it that you keep misrepresenting the pro-choice position?

>I think life is a good choice.

You would have been popular in the sixties.  "I think peace is a good
choice, man.  Let's just send great big boxes of flowers to the Ruskies."

>I have one solution, and I'll get nuclear flamed for it, but what is
>wrong with abstinence as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
>BTW--anyone notice that I've kept my postings on the level, without the
>sarcasm of the replies I get???

Here, have a clue.  Take two, they're small.  We reply sarcastically
to your postings because they show you to be unbelievably naive about
the other side of the issue, and because your suggestions (yeah, how
will we ever enforce abstainance?) are poorly thought out.

Please read up on the pro-choice issue at your local library, so you
can respond to our arguments more usefully.

-- 
_/_/_/  Brian Kendig                             Je ne suis fait comme aucun
 _/_/  bskendig@netcom.com                de ceux que j'ai vus; j'ose croire
  _/                            n'etre fait comme aucun de ceux qui existent.
                             Si je ne vaux pas mieux, au moins je suis autre.
                                                                 -- Rousseau
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: schabel@calspan.com (Dave Schabel)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Calspan Advanced Technology Center
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:31:33 GMT

In article <lcet04INN354@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>|> 
>What is absurd is that there is any communication at all.  After all,
>the entire argument is based upon the disagreement over whether or not
>the fetus is person.  I haven't seen one argument that doesn't
>resort to this decision of faith (after all there is no way to prove
>either side is correct) as the "final argument."
>

You are absolutely right.  However, since we are and cannot be
sure if and when it is a person, shouldn't we err on the side
of caution?  

Organization: Engineering Design Research Center, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA