HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:36:49 GMT

While reading article <1992Jul24.082924.17016@hemlock.cray.com>, I noticed that
rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) said the following:
 >Hmmm...  If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
 >support that decision too?

I'd expect him to be very disappointed in her, but not to love her any less.

 >No, of course not.  Now think that all women (and men too) are God's children 
 >and you should love them as you love your own children.  Are you going to
 >disown (or love less) other women because they made a decision you disagree 
 >with?

Well, setting aside for the moment that they're not your own children, I'd
say that it takes quite a bit of willpower to feel this way towards someone
other than your own child.   Remember, Saddam Hussein is one of God's children
too, but I digress.

 >I don't criticise Dan for standing by his daughter.  I do flame him for 
 >trying to make criminals of other women that seek an abortion.

 >Dan should stand by *all* women, the same as he would stand by his daughter.

Why should he?  He has a viewpoint, that abortion is wrong and is perfectly
free to follow his feelings and try to put controls on or stop abortion
altogether.  If you're female and have an illegal abortion, there's nothing
saying that Dan Quayle (or your parents) will love you any less for it.
-- 
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3795 alt.rush-limbaugh:3049
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:40:22 CDT


In article <1992Jul23.213536.17135@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.170632.14292@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> ]	I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
> ]and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
> ]wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
> ]decsion that she made".
> ]
> ]	Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
> ]Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
> 
> I would answer the same as he did. It is pro-family values to support
> your children once they have made a choice. He didn't say that he wouldn't
> try to influence the choice - he said he would support her if she
> made the choice.

I would answer as Dan did.  The difference is that Dan supports legislation
to make women in similar situations a criminal, while I oppose such legislation.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gsh@iti.org (Greg Halbrook)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 18:05:03 GMT

alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:

>	I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>decsion that she made".

>	Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>Quayle himself) to me. Comments?

What would you expect him to say?  His supporting his daughter in any
decision she made in this scenario sounds like an anti-family-value to you?
Try, for just a moment, to pretend that you are totally against abortion.
Then pretend your daughter, whom you love very much decides to have one.
Are you going to disown her because she made a decision you disagreed with?
(I know that some people might)  
     I'm pro-choice myself, but I can see no hypocrisy in someone who is 
pro-life standing by thier loved ones especially in a time of crisis, nor
do I see any lessening of family values in this.
--
					Greg.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3663 rec.arts.misc:324 rec.music.christian:5183
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.misc,rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: School Prayer/Moment of Silence
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:09:00 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services

In article <1992Jul20.223934.4360@pictel.com> harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:

>>There is a difference between school prayer and praying in school.
>
>You are right; however, I have heard of not only "school prayer" (time
>set aside by the institution to pray) but also "praying in school"
>being prohibited on several occasions.

	It sounds like what you have heard is propoganda, which is being 
spread wide and think about the evils of the the separation (of church and 
state) and how it is forcing hardship on helpless christians.

	I'm not familiar with a case where a student was prohibited from
carrying a bible, or reading it in their own time. Certainly, if there 
were such an incident, the ACLU would happily fund a court challenge, and
since there has been no challange (that I am aware of) I conclude that 
your stories are urban myth.

	If someone would provide me with the name and town of a school
that prohibited students from carrying bibles, I will personally investigate
and report on the situation. Until then, I can only presume that these
accusations are fiction, designed to strengthen the overall agenda of
adding religion to the basic school curriculum.

-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Judgmentalism (was Re: Whose Truth?)
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 03:54:53 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.222330.521@pictel.com> harling@pictel.com (Dan
Harling) writes:
>In this case, Jesus clearly taught that lust is
>sinful, which should be sufficient reason for one to avoid it,
>regardless of the category into which it falls.
>

I can't argue with that.

>I do not pretend to be an expert on matters Catholic, and I did not
>mean to imply in any way that Catholic doctrine is arbitrary, as the
>previous poster apparently did.
>

>I posted my article when I reached the end of the thread; apparently,
>the articles to which you refer arrived later.  I apologize for its
>untimeliness.

No, the apology is mine.  I should have realized that was the case.
Sorry if I offended you in any way.

Tim


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: toma@cray.com (Thomas Arneberg)
Subject: Re: Public Apology
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 23 Jul 92 08:44:25 CDT

In article <1992Jul22.144106.15273@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>===============================================================================
>William Crosmun
>crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com
>===============================================================================
>"As to guaranteeing bank deposits, the minute the government starts to do that
>... the  government  runs  into a  probable loss.  We  do not wish to make the 
>United  States Government liable  for the  mistakes and  errors of  individual
>banks, and put a premium on sound banking in the future."
>                                      Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933)
>===============================================================================

Wow, what a quote! Obviously, FDR was 100% right -- the S&L fiasco today is
due to the government's guarantees.

But wasn't it FDR's "New Deal" that got those guarantees going? If so, it
doesn't make sense that he would do something that he knows will result in
a "probable loss." History is not my strong point, so please straighten me
out if necessary.

Thanks,
  - Tom A.
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
;-) I'd rather be ____  Thomas R. Arneberg   | Inet: toma@cray.com
:-) singing in a |____| Senior IC Design Eng.| UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!toma
:-) Barbershop  _|   _| Cray Research, Inc.  | CLAIM TO FAME: Loni Anderson 
:-) Quartet!   (_)  (_) Chippewa Falls, Wisc.|   went to my high school 
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: paul@pj.tmc.edu (Thorongil)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Mississippi State University ERC
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:17:37 GMT

In article <gsh.711914703@hela.iti.org> gsh@iti.org (Greg Halbrook) writes:
>alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>
>>	I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>>and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>>wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>>decsion that she made".
>
>>	Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>>Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
>
>What would you expect him to say?  His supporting his daughter in any
>decision she made in this scenario sounds like an anti-family-value to you?
>Try, for just a moment, to pretend that you are totally against abortion.
>Then pretend your daughter, whom you love very much decides to have one.
>Are you going to disown her because she made a decision you disagreed with?
>(I know that some people might)  
>     I'm pro-choice myself, but I can see no hypocrisy in someone who is 
>pro-life standing by thier loved ones especially in a time of crisis, nor
>do I see any lessening of family values in this.
>--
>					Greg.

Of course Mrs. Quayle said her daughter would carry the baby to term...

       ___   ____
       /__)   /          ^  __| ^ |\ /|  ______________________________
      / .  \_/ .        / \(__|/ \| V | (__   paul@erc.msstate.edu
    _______________________________________)
      Engineering Research Center For Computational Field Simulation

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3849 alt.rush-limbaugh:3116
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Incompetent S&L deregulation
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:55:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: psygate.nate.383
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>...I hope we would agree that 
>>the deregulation of the S&L's was not one of Reagon's most successful
>>policies?

>Agreed. The problem was that Reagan took away the regulations without taking
>away the insurance subsidies.  It was still possible for a wealthy
>depositor to put $1 million in 10 different accounts, the S&Ls to turn 
>it into $50 million in risky mortgages, and they whole deal to be backed 
>100% by our tax dollars.

    So, do you think that everything would be just rosy today if the S&L's
had been deregulated without any deposit insurance so that when the crash 
occurred the depositors would have been the ones who took it on the chin?
IMHO, the big mistake was the deregulation, not the subsequent attempts to 
help the depositors. Once it became obvious that the deregulated S&L's 
were failing I think it would have been disastrous to our entire economy 
if their plight was ignored. What happened when banks failed in the late 
1920's? All the sudden people didn't have money to spend and the consumer
economy collapsed.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3886 alt.rush-limbaugh:3147
From: kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski)
Subject: Re: Denying Some Undeniable Truths: A Liberal Rebuttal
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:25:47 GMT

Just a few responses to Arthur Adams's responses to Rush's "Undeniable Truths":

>> 1)  The greatest threat to humanity lies in the nuclear arsenal of the USSR.
>> 2)  The greatest threat to humanity lies in the USSR.
>Seeing as there is no more USSR, it seems kind of pointless to 
>comment on the previous two.

Perhaps 2), but definitely not 1).  So many people find it convenient to forget
that all those ICBMs in the mutiple republics killing each other still exist
and are STILL POINTED AT US.  The ex-Soviet sub fleet still has sub-based
weapons POINTED AT US.  Perhaps it could be revised to "The greatest threat to
humanity lies in the nuclear arsenals of the nations of the CIS."

>> 5)  War is not obsolete.
>No, but we should try to make it so.

Nice thought, but not possible.  c.f. Iraq, August 1990.

>> 8)  Peace cannot be achieved by developing a "understanding" with the Russian
>>	People.
>Again, its not the sole solution, but its a start. This, of course, depends on 
>your definition of "understanding." 

The main problem is that Americans somehow thought that "the Russian people"
could do diddly-squat if the Communist Party decided to nuke the U.S.  If you
think that the recent events in the CIS show that the will of the people will
triumph, see China.

>>15)  The Peace Movement in the US, whether by accident or design, is 
>>	pro-Communist.
>To quote the great Col. Sherman T. Potter of the 4077th M*A*S*H,
>"horse-hockey." Peace is a good thing, no matter what your political stripe
>is.

I'm not sure if "pro-Communist" is accurate, but from what I've seen and
experienced in my life, "pro-Socialist" (or "anti-Capitalist," if you prefer)
very much is.

>>23)  Evolution cannot explain Creation.
>No, but if we say the Creator invoked/encouraged/whatevered evolution,
>it seems to be a pretty viable solution.

The problem with this is you still have the "7 days" problem, and even if you
take that allegorically, you're still left with the whole "made Man in God's
image" argument.

>>34)  This is not the fault of the rich.
>No, but common decency would make the rich want to try to help the poor,
>as many of them do.

Then again, I don't believe it's right that they should be FORCED to help.
The difference between charity and socialism and all that.
-- 
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3726 alt.rush-limbaugh:2962
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The real deal
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:23:02 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

gsh@iti.org (Greg Halbrook) writes:
>jroberts@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
>>Despite all of the atttention given to the Rush Limbaugh Fan Club, not all 
>>of it is good.  Some of it, including mine, is false.  

>Please keep in mind that the show is about Rush Limbaugh and HIS
>opinions.  If you don't like it, fine, but holding those who do in contempt
>is a bit narrow-minded.

    Hear, hear. I hope that jroberts isn't implying that being a "loyal 
listener" is the same as agreeing with everything Rush says. I listen as
much as I can, but not because I agree with Rush's politics. It just happens 
to be a funny show, and Rush just happens to be a funny guy. I'm sure that 
there are plenty of people who find Rush irritating; heck, he's irritated 
me more than once. Fortunately, however, I can take the rough with the 
smooth, and I'm willing to let Rush jack up my blood pressure once in a 
while in exchange for making me laugh the rest of the time.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:34:42 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article C45@solbourne.com, kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>While reading article <1992Jul24.150219.21396@umbc3.umbc.edu>, I noticed that
>I'd like to see a similar interchange with Mr. Clinton, asking him what he
>would do if his daughter grew up and joined Operation Rescue.  If he said
>that he hoped she wouldn't but would still love her if she did, does that
>make him pro-life?

You are missing the point.  Of course Clinton would support his daughter because
Clinton is pro-choice.  Quayl claims not to be but he actually is pro-choice.
That's where the lies come in.

---
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: EQUITY and Barbara Jordon
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 16:22:11 GMT

In article <mykes.09vv@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>12% unemployment is true.  Near 20% lending rates is true.  I bought a house
>in 1981, 4 months after Regan was sworn in.  When the loan was applied for,
>the interest rate was 18.75%.  In the 45 days between application for the loan
>and the closing on the house, the interest rates fell to 12.125%.  How old
>were you, Alex, during the Arab Oil Embargo?

	I remember the lending rate, although I was out of the country during
the last half of carters term. National unemployment, however, hasn't been
at 12% since the depression, and certainly wasn't at 12% during Carters term.
Unemployment peaked during Reagans first term, after the recssion of 1982.
Carter presided of high interest rates, but the economy was also growing
dramaticly during that time.

	I was 12 during the embargo, why? I remember when nixon imposed a
national 55mph speed limit over xmas in 1973, and I remember how Carter,
saying that the US should never again have to deal with something like
that, instituted a federal oil reserve. It was this reserve that enabled
gas prices to stay stable during the gulf war.

	But hey, it was probably a stupid idea.
-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3719 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3720
From: dbp@ecl.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rush compuserve
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:25:54 EDT
Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Pennsylvania State University

In article <1992Jul21.060649.7146@news.acns.nwu.edu>, dish@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Tony Goldish) writes:
> I am new to this group, so don't know if this has already been covered, but
> I know that rush talks on his show all the time about compuserve
> and haveing a compuserve email account. I believe that it
> is possible to use internet to email to compuserve (I know you
> can email to MCI mail, and to america online) so was wondering
> if anyone had done this, what his email address is, and how you went about
> doing it...
> thanks in advance fellow conservatives
> dish@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

Rush's Compuserve address is: 70277,2502
over internet: 70277.2502@compuserve.com

Hope this helps.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Perrussel - Penn State University
dbp@ecl.psu.edu    Those who can but do not think for 
themselves are undue burdens on society. -DBP 1991
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher)
Subject: Need help with kill file
Organization: Department of Economics, Univ of Minn
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:16:47 GMT

Is anyone out there good with KILL files?  I moved an individual
from this group to mine, after receiving some ad hominems and
obscenities from him, but his name lingers on in replies to
his posts.

What I'd like to do is set up my KILL file so that a follow-up
to his posts will, likewise, be killed.  Is that possible?  I'd
appreciate e-mail.

Thanks.
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:35:36 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Jul23.170632.14292@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
]	I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
]and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
]wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
]decsion that she made".
]
]	Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
]Quayle himself) to me. Comments?

I would answer the same as he did. It is pro-family values to support
your children once they have made a choice. He didn't say that he wouldn't
try to influence the choice - he said he would support her if she
made the choice.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Denying Some Undeniable Truths: A Liberal Rebuttal
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 17:46:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana

In article <1992Jul27.234856.25973@afterlife.ncsc.mil> acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:
>
>Incidentally, I've tried to keep this in the simple, "bullet" format
>Rush did.
>>
>>                     Rush Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths
>>  [Truths and responses all deleted only to save space]

A lot of good thoughts can be reduced to simple terms but for all of
these points much more can be said to elucidate the positions.

Thanks for an interesting post.

Tim
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3884 talk.abortion:29283
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Intellectually Challenging moments in Modern history
Date: 28 Jul 92 03:30:42 GMT
Organization: Amiga makes it possible
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith

In article <1992Jul27.101910.28681@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson) writes:
> In article <mykes.0acg@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> >In article <1992Jul27.034354.27753@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> >> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> >> ] Women were never ever made criminals.  Doctors were held responsible.
> >> ] This is before Roe, since there has been ZERO legislation against
> >> ] abortion in the 20 years since.
> >> don't get out in the big world a whole lot now do you?
> >> forget about a place called pennsylvania?
> [...]
> >
> >Now, tell me how Pennsylvania passed a law making abortion
> >100% illegal?  Or shut the hell up.
> >
> [...]
> >
> >I have, in the past, said that abortion is murder.  But that
> >is MY opinion.  Do you deny me the right to MY opinion?  Are
> >you that much a facsist?  You would censor me?
> >
> >
> Mike, for somebody who just told drieux to 'shut the hell up',
> just because he _proved you wrong_ in your initial, unqualified
> assertion, you don't have much room to talk.
>

He hasn't proved a thing.  What has he proved?  That I remember
a state called Pennsylvania?  I asked him to put up or shut up,
not to shut up altogether.  Can you read english?

> Moreover, drieux has recently been offered the papacy, and we
> plan to try you for heresy if he accepts.
>

I could care less.

> muriel
> standard disclaimer

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh