HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: "One Nation, Indivisible"
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 10:16:55 PST

In <JLD3wB6w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com>,William C. Barwell writes:

>mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

>> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu wrote:
> : In article <ghartzog.32cl@terapin.com>, ghartzog@terapin.com (Garrett Hartz
>> ) writes...
>> :
> : |you should also take a look at many of our legal documents. Especially the
>> : |Declaration of Independance (written by none other than Thomas Jefferson)
>> ich
>> : |mention God. Look at many of the state constitutions as well. Look at the
>>: |pledge of alliegence. Look at our currency ("In God we Trust"). I'm sure y
>> 'll
>> : |notice one thing that's mentioned repetedly, "God".
>>
>> Look at the U.S. Constitution that makes no reference to any diety except in
>> the date.
>>
>> :
>> :    This is not to detract fromt he notion that there were
>> : G-d-beleivers among the US founders, but the word "God" was added to the
> : pledge of alliegence perhaps a century and an half after the US's founding.
>> :
>> :    It originally ran: "...one nation, indivisible, with liberty and
>> : (blah...balh...blah)"
>> :
>> : Gadson
>>
> "Under God" was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance on 14 June, 1954 and "
>> God We Trust" was made mandatory for currency and coinage on 11 July, 1955.
>> --
> Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have n
> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear i
>> The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your
>> Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata


>Somebody once asked Benjamin Franklin what he thought the motto of our
>country should be. Franklin answered that it should be, "Mind Your Own
>Business".  I think we should cahnge the motto "In God We Trust" to
>Franklin's motto.

I'm glad that you've been converted to see the light, sir.  If you now agree
with Franklin's motto, then perhaps you will now see that the people who force
the welfare state on those who don't want to pay for it are *not* "minding
their own business?"

Are you, by bitching and moaning about Bush's pardons and assuming that every-
thing not liberal and Democrat-controlled is evil, "minding your own business?"

I believe in MYOB,. too.  But I believe that I should MYOB even if it's not
in the best interest of my favored political ideology.  Come to think of it,
MYOB *is* my favored political ideology.  I don't selectively apply it when
it suits my political agenda.

Hypocrite.


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
"In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that
for religious rights." -- James Madison, Federalist #51
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: paws@spam.cray.com (Daniel Baehr)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning 
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 5 Jan 93 10:41:25 CST


In article <B74VwB1w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com>, popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:

               [MUCH deleted]

> 
> Recommended reading.  Andrew D. White's "the Hisrtory Of Warfare between 
> Science And Religion."   Science has been hampered by religous 
> authorities every step of the way.  This book is a great primer on some 
> of the ways this has been done.  Even now, Pat Robertson's people, the 
> Christian Coalitian, is endeavoring to elect school boards who will put 
> the pseudosciense of Creationism into school curicula even tho 
> creationism has been proven false.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

     Just HOW does one disprove something that is to be believed by faith?

> 
> Pope Charles
> 
> --
> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
> Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
> 1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis


      Daniel Baehr
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Daniel Baehr Work: paws@spam.cray.com  Home: daniel_baehr@bearsden.UUCP  |
|              Portal: paws@cup.portal.com  -> (Public Access UNIX system) |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:34:36 GMT

In article <C08L2F.I7F@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>I have noticed a definite hypocrisy in the term "Conservative", especially
>as applied by Rush...
>
>Has anyone noted that Rush, and most other "Conservatives", support the
>measure which passed in Colorado (family values and all that)?
>
>Yet, is not one of the founding principles of conservative thought that the
>government should make fewer laws, and leave people more alone (than the
>liberals)?
>
>Indeed, just what kind of hypocrits are these folks?
>
>Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)


The 'founding principle of conservative thought' to which you refer
is still being adhered to by libertarians. The term 'conservative'
has in reality come to mean those who want to use the government
to advance right-wing causes, as opposed to those ('liberals') who
want to use the government to advance left-wing causes.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Willie Fundie?
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:13:20 GMT

Don Wiggins (wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: I see that guv clinton said goodbye to his (Southern?) Baptist
: congregation yesterday.  Whenever liberals begin to fat-mouth
: conservatives, they often lump them all together as "Right-Wing
: Fundamentalists." Since Baptists are about as fundamental as it gets,
: does that mean that willie is one of the hated fundamentalists, or does
: it mean that he only pretends to be one whenever there's a photo-op
: involved?  If he is a "fundie," as I've seen them referred to here,
: then it seems to me that he'd feel compelled to support his church's
: positions.  If he belonged to a country club that excluded blacks or
: jews, there would be a terrible outcry, but he belongs to an
: organization that is strongly anti-abortion and against the practice of
: homosexuality, and nobody has said a word.  Why haven't we heard a peep
: from either of these groups regarding his support of an organization
: that actively opposes them?
: 

This was reported on HNN news this morning and they did report that his
own congregation was very upset with him for his stance on abortion and
his allowing gays in the military.


: |===========================================================================|
: |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        |
: |===========================================================================|
From: pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (if God's your father then call home!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton and the deficit
Date: 12 Jan 1993 19:25:51 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Reply-To: pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra.rose-hulman.edu

Gary James Patalsky <gp2f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>Clinton is already using an $18 billion increase in the predicted
>deficit to back out of his promise to half the budget by the end of his
>4 year term.  Interestingly, Clinton had estimated the deficit during
>the campaign at $400 billion, making the deficit $80 billion below his
>own estimates.
>
>Also, it seems that he will not be lowering the taxes of the middle
>class, as he had promised.

Comments, Clinton supporters?  Here was this great moderate president elect, 
supposed to be able to feel our pain, help us get through, help jobs get 
created, etc., etc., etc., and now number one priority is cutting the deficit.

So why the heck didn't Bill Clinton say ANY of this during his campaign?

Rush is asking a very good, very viable question these days.  Just where is the
soul of Bill Clinton?  Is Clinton doing all of this out of genuine concern for
the nation or does he have another agenda?  And if he honestly feels that 
deficit reduction takes precedence over getting the economy going in his first
100 days (which is what he said he'd do during the campaign!) then my wasn't
he honest about it right off the bat?

The more I see from Slick, the more he absolutely scares me.


clueless chuck				                     ___
pearsodc@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu                             (o o)
------------------------------------------------------------w U w------------
|DOUGLAS C PEARSON JR                |we were headed for somewhere          | 
|rose-hulman institute of technology |but that was before                   |
|campus box 1204                     |you traded in your peace sign         |
|5500 wabash avenue		     |   for a finger...                    |
|terre haute, indiana  47803         |			- steve taylor, 1992|
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:47:38 GMT
Subject: Re: I'm Famous!
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: Sysop@f116.n502.z30.fidonet.org (Sysop)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Initial Message
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 21:25:41 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 30:502/116

This message initalizes this conference (FNPACK)! 
--  
        Sysop  -  via FidoNet Node: 1:363/42
             UUCP:  -  ...tarpit!tous!business!30!502!116!Sysop
             ARPA:  -  Sysop@f116.n502.z30.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Conservative? Hahaha....
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 13:15:04 GMT

In article <90186@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>
mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In <1993Jan11.122247.19895@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>|Name the group, and give your evidence that this is what they want.

>University of Michigan for one.

This is not a government, so you would need evidence the University is
advocating a prohibition which would apply to all of civil society.
Moreover, I doubt if they have or want to prohibit the use of the word
"fag" on campus; I suspect they are prohibiting its use as an epithet.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11674 talk.politics.misc:66363
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:32:34 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

> So we now have, in Colorado, for the first time since slavery
> was abolished, a situation in which discrimination against
> a person, on grounds which are extraneous to the situation at hand,
> is now sanctioned by the state, in that the discriminatee is
> explicitly denied the equal protection of the law.

That's a point that legal scholars have been bouncing back and forth for
decades. Does "equal protection under law" mean that laws must be
created to specifically protect each and every group? I'm left-handed,
and find the use of the word "sinister" to be an affront to people who
write with their left hand. Does this merit Yet Another Law?

Don't get me wrong - I think that most bigots are, basically, stupid
people. But I'm not convinced that passing more laws regulating people's
lives is the solution.


--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ndasmith@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Noah Smith)
Subject: WHY DOES RUSH MISPRONOUNCE NAMES?
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:42:34 GMT

Regular listeners will notice that Rush likes to say the last names of
Robert Reich and Mario Cuomo differently than most people are accustomed
to.  If anybody knows why he's doing this, let me know at the above
address.  Thanks!
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: "One Nation, Indivisible"
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:08:36 GMT


In a previous article, bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu (Bob Rahe) says:

>In article <JLD3wB6w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>
>>Somebody once asked Benjamin Franklin what he thought the motto of our 
>>country should be. Franklin answered that it should be, "Mind Your Own 
>>Business".  I think we should cahnge the motto "In God We Trust" to 
>>Franklin's motto.    
>
>  I would go along with that ONLY if the country would then actually
>FOLLOW that motto!  It certainly isn't following it now, nor is it following
>its current motto.....   ;-(

Not to throw yet another log on this fire, but the motto of the United
States is not "In God We Trust", It's "E Pluribus Unum", meaning "Of
Many, One".



>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Bob Rahe, Delaware Tech&Comm College | AIDS, Drugs, Abortion: -        |
>|Internet: bob@hobbes.dtcc.edu        |  - Don't liberals just kill you?|
>|CI$: 72406,525 Genie:BOB.RAHE        |Save whales; and kill babies?    |
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   These are the REAL  *         
*  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu/Kelley L. Miller  / /__\      Gay 90's!!      *           
*-------------------------------------/____\-----------------------*  
***************** Oxymoron: Freewill Christianity ******************
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11443 talk.politics.misc:66194
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:39:27 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1993Jan4.112422.2886@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In <C02Mws.CtK@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>> Mike Jones (mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com) wrote:
>> : mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>
>> : :                                        The most successful governmental
>> : : economic policies in this century, known as trickle-down, were a Kemp/Reagan
>> : : implementation.  Reagan's terms not only produced enormous prosperity and
>> : : growth, but year after year the debt and defecit as a percentage of
>> : : GDP _decreased_ (source: Milton Friedman, interviewd on Wall Street Week).
>> :
>> : This claim is so vague as to be meaningless. It is true that you can pick
>> : starting and ending points to illustrate this fact, but there's no independent
>> : reason to pick those points. If you take "the 80's" (1980-1989), or "the
>> : Reagan years (1980-1988), that isn't a true statement. (I'll welcome FACTS
>> : to prove me wrong, because I don't have the numbers handy.) The growth was
>> : largely fueled by massive increases in public and private debt, which has
>> : been very much responsible for the mess we're in now.
>>
>> I did not video tape Wall Street Week, nor do I have a transcript of it.
>> The best of my recollection is what I wrote.  I apologize for saying that
>> the DEBT decreased.  But the defecit did indeed decrease.  Since you ask
>> me to do your research for you, I will provide you with the data, as found
>> in my 1992 Universal Almanac.  All dollar figures are in BILLIONS.
>>
>> 1980 GNP 2732.0, defecit = 73.8, %GNP = .0270
>> 1985 GNP 4014.9, defecit = 212.3, %GNP = .0529
>> 1987 GNP 4536.7, defecit = 148.0, %GNP = .0327
>> 1988 GNP 4864.3, defecit = 155.1, %GNP = .0319
>> 1989 GNP 5200.8, defecit = 152.0, %GNP = .0292
>
>Mike, unless you plan on arguing that .0270 > .0292, you just disproved your
>own assertion.
>
>The deficit as a percentage of GNP was higher at the end of the 1980's than
>it was at the start of the 1980's.
>

You are not giving mike his due credit. Let us not forget 1992, with its
399 billion dollar deficit. I do not have the figures on estimated GNP for
the year available, but I am sure that it does not reach the 14.8 trillion
dollars needed to mark an overall reduction in the deficit/GNP ratio in
the reagan/bush years

Robert Johnston
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Good liberalism
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:45:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.172837.5666@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writ
es:
>Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show
>
>for Tuesday, January 5, 1993
>
> [...]
>
>He also thinks Buffalo should be ashamed of itself for coming
>back and winning against the Oilers. Buffalo has gone to the
>Superbowl the past two years, and yet when the Oilers got a 35-3
>lead, Buffalo came back to score a big victory. Obviously,
>Buffalo was too conservative and tried to be its best and
>therefore unfairly excelled. "This is not good liberalism," Rush
>warns.

     I think Rush should have mentioned what could have made the Bills victory
"good liberalism". Here's my idea:
     At halftime, Bills coach Marv Levy could have gone to the refs and said
that the fact that his team was losing so badly *must* have something to do
with an unnatural advantage that the Oilers had over his team. He could point
to last week's Bills loss to Houston as "proof". The refs, overcome by the
feeling that *something* must be done to correct this horrible injustice, then
decide to make the Oilers play under different rules (15 yards for a first
down, three points for a touchdown, no field goals, an automatic penalty every
three downs, etc.). The evil, oppressive Oilers would then get the defeat that
they so richly deserve and the Bills would go on to a blessed victory.
     When interviewed after the game, Levy would say "Of course the win isn't 
tainted. All we asked for at halftime was for a level playing field. Is that so
bad?"
     That's the day I stop watching the NFL. :-)

                                        Steve
|
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)

    Building of the new .sig in progress. Please be patient.
      Sorry for the inconvenience.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: freier@mail.physics.utah.edu (rodney james freier)
Subject: Re: Debate in a Vacuum!
Organization: University of Utah - Physics Department
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 18:42:35 GMT

In article <1i7kqfINNbjs@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland) writes:
|> 
|> In spite of what most (not all) of you think, there *IS* such 
|> a thing as absolute Right and Wrong, Good and Evil, Moral and 
|> Immoral.  These are concepts that are designed to make their 
|> transgressors feel uncomfortable, and to deny their existence 
|> and dilute their meaning bankrupts a society. I am truly 
|> sorry that the human condition is such that these 
|> inconvenient concepts are required, but they are.  These are 
|> NOT relativistic concepts, either. They are hard truths that 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   You're right.  These concepts are not traveling at large fractions
of the speed of light with respect to us.  PLEASE PLEASE (my keyboard
won't give me characters any bigger than this)  don't use the term
'relativistic'.  To physicists it has a much more rigid definition
than the one you are using.  Try using just 'relative' or 'relativist'.
Using 'relativistic' or 'relativity' just continues the incorrect idea
that Enstein said everything is relative.  He didn't.  The theory
of relativity doesn't.   It says that some very important things are
relative... but not everything.  

|> have been verified and reverified down through the ages since 
|> before the Greeks and Romans!
|> 
|> 

Relativity != relativism

Rod, splitting hairs.... albeit thick hairs.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 10:25:26 GMT

The Grim Reaper (scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu) wrote:
: In article <C0GIzL.M6x@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: >: Some of them WERE proven guilty. They didn't just lie to Congress, they broke
: >: the law that restricts aiding the contras (except for humanitarian aid). 
: >: Making a deal with the terrorists wasn't illegal, although Reagan incessantly
: >: claimed that no deals would be made with them, however, aiding the contras is.
: >: I guess Republicans believe, as Richard Nixon said, "If the president does it,
: >: it's not illegal."
: >: 
: >
: >You on the other hand are saying that "criminals" have no rights to fair
: >trial.  The special "persecutor" is above the law, right?  Boy, put this
: >prosecutor on your tail and you would scream, especially if you were innocent.
: >
: >As for Nixon, he and his cronies defrauded taxpayers of $$$ and pocketed
: >the money.  Ollie North didn't exactly keep that $30 million for himself.
: >
: And it's better to use it to arm our enemies?  Wait... are you saying that
: they're guilty here?  You seems to be saying that they're innocent, but
: that Ollie is guilty?
: 

What enemies were armed?  The Iranians we dealt with were moderates who were
seeking to control Iran and not representatives of the Iyatolah.  The Iyatolah
had a heart attack and was rumored to be dead.  In 1776, we sure looked like
moderates to the french, so they loaned us and supplied us.  I fail to see
enemies in the picture...  There also never ever was any trade of arms for
hostages.  There was a sale of arms, and as a sign of good faith from the guys
we sold arms to, hostages were freed.

As for North, I wonder what you really think he did the rest of the time...
The answer: using clearly legal methods of getting money to the contras.
Also, can you tell me what North was officially found guilty of and what the
punishment (fines/jail) for the crimes are?

: >
: >There SURE is a lot to investigate.  Why do you insist on such one-sided
: >investigations?
: >
: >: -Scott
: >: 
: Why do you insist on no investigation, when a crime is so obvious?
: 

NO INVESTIGATION?  HAHA.  What is 5+ years and $50 million of taxpayer
dollars and no oversight mean if not an investigation?  I also ask why
Democrats are not investigated for far worse crimes?  I'm all FOR investigating
(via special prosecutor) the house bank crooks (however many there may be),
the Keating 5, etc.

: 



Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc