HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: William Jefferson ________ Clinton
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 16:35:37 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC
Keywords: 4 names

In article <C17C00.KMr@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>
>
>>   Rush said on one of his TV shows that Bill had 4 names just like
>>George Herbert Walker Bush.  Is there any truth to this?  Would be
>>funny if true, considering all the heat George took over 4 names.
>
>William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.
>
>>   
>>   Another question about Bill:  From what I understand, his educational
>>history is as follows.  Prep School, Georgetown University (undergrad), Yale
>>(law school).  Is this right?  If so, doesn't sound like a man of the people
>>to me.
>
>I'd like to know when he finished his work.  I've heard Rush say that 
>there was at least some part of his education that Clinton never finished.
>What was it, and in what text did Clinton make clear that he didn't 
>finish it?  As I recall, Rush's assertion was the basis for generating
>the Hillary Clinton cackle that's played on the radio.  But I don't recall
>the exact assertion, nor the evidence he gave to support it.  
>Does anyone have that information?

Between Prep School and Georgetown he was a Rhodes scholar, taking
classes at Oxford University in England.  He never finished whatever
degree it is that Rhodes scholars get.  Rush got this from a favorable
biography of Clinton which quoted him as saying that he regretted
never having finished the degree, and that his class had the lowest
graduation rate of any of the Rhodes scholars because so many were
just there primarily to avoid service in Vietnam.  When the record was
examined it turned out that the graduation rate for his class was around
85% which makes it one of the highest.  When Hillary was asked about
Bill not graduating she claimed that Rush would say anything that was
controversial because that is his schtick, giggle, giggle giggle.  

>
>Steve Kellmeyer
>
>
>-- 
>
>Steve Kellmeyer 
>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"Above all, as the keynote of all Democratic policy, in passing upon any
 question, let the controlling aim and ambition be to keep the road open for
 private enterprise and personal initiative."

             John W. Davis - Democratic candidate for President - 1924

===============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14086 talk.abortion:58446
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 28 Jan 1993 09:04:13 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan28.164836.4742@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:

>All right. I see where we disagree. I don't see the actual restriction
>as making one less than human but the legality of the restriction. I.e.
>I am no more human when the government owns me but doesn't tell me what
>to do (e.g. when I've registered for the draft, but not been drafted)
>as when it is telling me what to do (ten-hut) . If you don't hold this
>perspective, I can see how we would disagree.


I'm not sure we do disagree.  I don't grant that the government has the
right to 'own me' even if they don't do anything with that ownership,
and I think the government is dead wrong to draft males to defend the 
country.  So, I think we agree on that part.  The government doens't
have any business 'owning' people.

Adrienne Regard

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:20:34 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.161725.24748@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
|> > = (John Townsend) writes:
|> 
|> >The more interesting question right now is that, since Clinton was fully aware
|> >of Baird's hypocritical disregard for the law, but decided it was OK and
|> >nominated her anyway, what does that say about his own ethics and respect for
|> >the law?  Should he resign too?  It's only the second day of his presidency,
|> >and people are already asking "How much did Clinton know?"
|> 
|> No they're not.  The Republican whiners, the poorest damn losers I've
|> ever seen, are asking stupid questions like this.  I truly could care
|> less.  Why?  Because this is the first Cabinet nomination in this
|> century to be voluntarily withdrawn.  Unlike John Tower the drunk being
|> defended through a bitter rejection vote by Congress, Clinton felt the
|> will of the people and acted immediately.

What are you, an alcohol-o-phobe?  Don't you know that alcoholism is a
predisposition just like homosexuality?  John Tower couldn't help being a
drunkard.  He was simply living an alternate lifestyle.  Shame, shame on you!
Surely you wouldn't want someone to be passed over for a job because they were
exhibiting the lifestyle that they were born with a predisposition toward. 

Texas is just too progressive of a state.  First a recovered alcoholic US
Senator, and now a recovering alcoholic Governor: Ma Richards.  Looks like we
need to add a clause covering the civil rights of alcoholics to Teddy's
homosexual civil rights bill, since the rest of the nation isn't so progressive.


***  The opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my  ***
***  employer.                                                           ***
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.abortion
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Subject: Re: Fetal Rights of Inheritance
Originator: mnemonic@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:23:31 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.012347.8703@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM> scc@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.223910.20003@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:
>>Ah, Mr. Frank brings back my favorite law school subject.  Actually, I enjoyed 
>>the Rule Against Perpetuities, abolished by statute in CA, because the CA 
>>Legislature thought that it was too difficult to learn.
>
>Abolished by statute?  I thought instead that there was a California Supreme
>Court case which ruled that a lawyer who botched the RAP was not negligent.

You have it right, Stephen.

>In Lucas v. Hamm, 364 P.2d 685 (Cal. 1961)....

It stands as support of the reasoning in Lucas v. Hamm that Dennis Pollard
went to law school and came away with the conclusion that California had
abolished the RAP by statute. If he can do that, then who can reasonably
expect a lawyer to get the Rule Against Perpetuities right?


--Mike


-- 
Mike Godwin,    |"I'm waiting for the one-man revolution
mnemonic@eff.org| The only one that's coming."
(617) 864-0665  |                           
EFF, Cambridge  |                   --Robert Frost 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,uiuc.politics,alt.politics.elections
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Campaign funding a joke
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:23:45 GMT

mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones) writes:

>kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>  So, what you are saying is that government has become SO complex that
>>we now have no hope of ordinary people understanding how it is run.  
>>  Watch what you say, because the next thing you know we won't be 
>>educated enought to vote.  Government can never become too complex for 
>>the people to understand and run it.  If this is the case, then government
>>reform is even more important.

>No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying merely that I don't really
>have a problem with the "career politician" per se,

   The problem with career politicians is two fold.  (1)  They have shown
themselves to only be interested in re-election.  (2)  They don't have the
real-world experience to understand the concequences of their legislation.
The second point was illistrated by Herbert Humphry when after politics he
went into the private sector and failed in his business.  He commented afterward
that he wished he had realized what government regulations did to small
businessmen.  ( I admit that the exact citation is vague on my part, but 
hopefully the flavor still exists).

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 07:45:28 PST

In <1993Jan23.170753.24298@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis writes:

>In <1993Jan23.073158.1474@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Dougla
>>In article <1993Jan21.174606.22838@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.c
>>>> = (craig sivils) writes:
>>>
>>>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of
>>>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the school
>>>>private or public of their choice.
>>>
>>>Why does Craig think that being pro-choice means I should spend MY tax
>>>dollars on PRIVATE schools?  Maybe Craig can simply pay for those
>>>PRIVATE schools with his own PRIVATE money and leave the PUBLIC alone.
>>>
>>>Let's not forget that many of these PRIVATE schools are religious
>>>brain-dead robot makers, and I'm surprised Craig thinks the public
>>>should pay for religious instruction...
>>>
>>Why is it that ... people are stuck with public schools
>>that teach their children what to think rather that how to think?  The truth
>is that anyone who doesn't like the way their kids are being taught, but don't
>>have the money for a private school basically get told, "Tough Shit.  We'll
>>teach your kids the way we see fit."

>Why do you think the state should pay for your kids' religious indoctrination?

Well, let's just say this:  The Constitution says that Congress shall not
establish a religion.  It doesn't say that everything it does will be complete-
ly free from it.  If the vouchers in question were only good for religious
teachings *for certain religions*, then I'd certainly oppose it.  I don't see
how giving parents their choice of schools *establishes a national religion*
which would violate the First (and 14th) Amendments.  I've tried to find that,
but I can't.  Funding for only Catholic schools, for example seems like
establishment to me.  Letting parents choose *any* religion (*including the
freedom to choose a school which teaches atheism*) or complete lack there of
is hardly establishment of a national religion.

My turn:  Do you think the state should pay for your abortion or the abortion
that your lady friend needs?  If so, why?  Isn't forcing people to pay taxes
for something that their religion forbids just a way of denying them of their
religious freedom?  I've posed that question several times before.  Why won't
anyone answer it?


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
This .sig meets Greenpeace standards by using over 25% recycled pixels.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Inherant characteristics of inanimate objects
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 20:48:45 GMT

jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:

  >Are you kidding?   Ronald Reagan was arguably the WORST president in
  >the last 60 years.  The Reagan administration wasted tons of money on
  >worthless military projects, destroyed the economy by running up a HUGE
  >debt, let our cities go straight to hell, ruined the public school
  >system, and sold weapons to Iran and gave the money to bandits.  And
  >you think that this man is worthy of accolades?  The final crime, the
  >selling of our country to Japan, was his worst, and he had enough gall
  >to accept the payoff in public!!

Nothing like a little unemotional, objective, clear-headed assessment to
support your position.  Hell, don't hold back; tell us what you really
think.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: "Trivial" Felonies (Was: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 26 Jan 93 14:00:55 CST


In article <1993Jan25.215040.1073@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
> What I find interesting is that this appointment was supposed to be ground
> breaking in that Baird would have been the first woman in the AG role. She
> was a good example of a woman balancing her career and family life. So
> what do they "get" her on? Her means of procuring child care so that she
> could further her career.

That is because her "means" were illegal (while working families strugle to
find legal ways of procuring child care).

>                            I don't consider this a coincidence. The so-called
> family values types have always looked askance at daycare as an enabler of
> "the breakup of the American family," i.e., it allows mothers to compete
> in the workplace.

Maybe so, by the "family values types" were not the ones that shot Zoe down.
The Dems in the Senate rebelled when flooded with negative calls.  After 
listening to her confirmation hearings, I, a self proclaimed liberal, was 
publicly calling for her to step down.

Ironicly, Sen. Orin Hatch was one of the loudest Baird supporters.

>                    I attribute the flap about her daycare to the same cause
> as the railing about Clinton's "draft dodging," pot smoking, whatever: it's
> the death rattle of the old order as it's fading from power.

I attribue the flap to not taking enough time to look into and think about
Zoe's background.  Clinton was in a rush to name someone before Christmas
(to quiet the critics that were saying he was taking to long) and made a 
bad choice.  I'm glad that they were smart enought to admit the mistake 
rather than spend political capital trying to justify her actions (like
Bush prolonged the Sununu embarasment).

>                                                               The
> hippie/yuppie/whatever-diminutive-you-like generation is here: get used
> to it. :-)

I'm looking forward to it.

-- 
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,talk.politics.misc
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: What does sacrifice mean to President Clinton?
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:31:37 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <16B5D1416F.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

>In article <visser.727661764@convex.convex.com>
>visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:

+>>+>  However, I see TAX INCREASE written all over the President's
+>>+>speech, and this will only put us into further economic troubles.
+>>
+>>	Not only tax increase, but spending increases as well.

+>       However much the Republicans want to blame the Congress and however
+>much the Democrats want to complain about lack of "leadership" (which
+>produces the question of exactly what Tom Foley thinks his job *is*)
+>there's noe evidence anybody on either side of the aisle or the mall
+>are interested in spending cuts.  It would require looking their
+>constituents in the eye and saying, "No," something which they are
+>not prepared to do and we really aren't prepared to hear.

	It goes beyond spending cuts.  I dont believe that there is any
will on the part of anyone in either party to cut the deficit.   I believe
that there is a "will" on the part of those in power in washington to go
on one big spending spree.
	


+>>As last
+>>I understood it, he intends to "grow" out of the deficit by spending
+>>federal money.

+>      I swear I heard this during Reagan's term.

	Yes, exactly.  The only real difference is that were going
to raise taxes rather than cut them.  

	When Reagan did it, it was called Supply-side economics.  When
Clinton plans to do it, its called "investment", "long-term" or 
Growth economics.


+>>  And beyond that there is his "national service (or slavery
+>>depending on your politics)"

+>       Indentured servitude is probably the appropriate "It's the other
+>side's icky idea" term.

	This one is not a matter of "sides", its a generational thing.
Behind these "national service" proposals is the idea that people should
be forced to perform low-paying jobs the government does not wish to
hire full time people for.  
	Personally, I dont believe that "forcing" people into "service" 
realizes any social goals and that the costs of such programs are far
higher than any benefits they could bring.  
	If they want national "service", I suggest a special surtax on
people currently between the ages of 30 and 40.  Or better yet, how 
about forcing really large amounts of "service" by doctors and lawyers.
How about forcing them to work legal aid or a medical eqivelent an average
of one day a week, increasing the amount they have to work based on their
income.  



Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Why are conservatives so stupid ?
Summary: Liberals believe that conservatives are neanderthals
Keywords: liberals, conservatives, intellegence
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:30:40 GMT

kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>  There are a great number of regularly posting liberals who apparently 
>think that conservative = idiot.  Most of the time this is an inference; 
>others say it explicitly.  Why do liberals think they corner the 
>intelligence market?

    I would hope that you don't consider me as one of the ones who think 
that conservative == idiot, but just in case here's my 2 cents.

>  I agree that some conservatives are red-neck, uneducated people, but an 
>equal number of liberals are sheep following the crowd to slaughter.  There
>are many conservatives who listen to RL and have high IQ's.  We listen to 
>him because he is entertaining, and he is the only conservative voice in the
>mass media.            

    Well, I listen to him for just about those exact reasons, and I suppose 
that this is a good time to ask whether you agree with Rush's explicitly 
stated opinion that liberalism is heinous, and that liberals are stupid 
for holding liberal opinions?

>  I am sick of hearing liberals that dismiss everything RL says as drivel      
>calling people that go to the opposite extreme 'dittoheads'.  Conservatives
>need a similar term for these liberals, maybe 'eraseheads' after that wonderful
>David Linch movie.

    Sorry to break this to you but the term Dittohead was not invented by 
liberals. Some of what Rush says *is* drivel, and highly inconsistent 
drivel to at that. At one point I can recall Rush speaking disparagingly 
of the theory of Evolution saying that he couldn't accept that humanity 
could have happened by accident, and yet in other instances I've heard 
Rush talking about the amount of time that mankind has been present on 
Earth and by gosh he's using dates and timelines lifted directly from 
Evolution. 

    Essentially, when the "scientific facts" appear to support Rush, Rush 
supports the "facts", but when those "facts" appear to disprove his position 
he ridicules them and their originators.

    I'd also say that Rush could use a refresher course on world history.

>  Sorry, just needed to vent my spleen over these 'know-it-all' liberals.

    Consider this point; how many of the liberals posting here are just 
venting their spleens over their favorite 'know-it-all' conservative? 
('Of course I've heard of it - that's why I'm the host...')

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Draft-Dodging Rush?
Date: 27 Jan 93 06:04:27 GMT
Organization: The Missing Link BBS, Santa Maria, CA  805-925-1129

Geesh...  at least post some facts and not just alot of implications.

FACT:  Clinton DENIED smoking pot, then 'sorta' admitted it (said 
something to the effect that yes, he has smoked pot a couple of times, 
but he didn't inhale)

FACT:  RUSH admitted it and had even publicly stated it on his radio show 
before it became an issue.

The major difference...   Clinton is a political figure and subject to 
elections.  He is responsible to his constituents and now the American 
people.  Rush is NOT a political figure, he is a radio and television 
personality who makes his money based on his popularity and the incomes 
which result for advertising revenues--directly related to the ratings of 
his shows.


--
pete@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)  {SYStem OPerator}
The Missing Link BBS, (805) 925-1129
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Larry King (daytime?) he he
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:43:26 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <1k5a54INNpbj@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, aj234@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Woolard) writes:
> Does Larry really think he has the heart (he he) to compete head to head
> with RUSH. I think not, but I bet the main stream press will give some
> serious coverage to this competition. In the end we will see who the 
> real king is. Stay tuned, Febuary 1, 1993, Larry King goes head to head
> with RUSH. Can you believe Larry is giving up his comfortable throne to
> Jim Bohanan in the late nite market. While I sure he will have a formitable
> market share, he won't touch Rush. 
>  
> Reply on this board and E-mail since I can't log into here often....
>  
> 
> -- 
> Don't blame me     O   O   I voted Republican !!!!!!!!!!
>                      ^
>                    \___/

Funny, I have been saying the same kind of thing over the past 12 years!

-Garrett

> Jack Kemp in '96 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh