HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:49:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>->once the choice is made, there is no recourse, other than a another
>->constitutional amendment.  The simple fact is that the religion with
>->the most members would be able to impose their dogma onto everyone else.
>->Period.  Again, this is the tyranny of the majority.  The worst choice
>->of all.

> Thanks for getting me up to speed on this one. 
> I dont think we can assume what will happen if choice three is selected. We
>dont even know what the results of the voting would be.
 
You are right, I do not know what the results of the voting will be,
because I do not know which religion would be able to drum up the
most support.

>                                                        The type of question
>may be most important. Do you think life starts at birth or at conception or
>somewhere in between the two ? 

I think the question would be "At what point do you grant this life
full rights as a human being?.  Currently the answer is "at 35, when
you can become president." :-)

Seriously, what concerns me more than the results is the process.
This is an incredibly complex emotional issue.  Like slavery was
140 years ago.  We have both sides getting more strident.  Look
at the terrorist tactics The Lambs of Christ use to stop doctors
from performing abortions.  I can't think of any abortion-rights 
analogues, but I'm sure they exist.  First there would be the TV ad
campaign.  Can you imagine it?  Each faction would say the other
factions' views are morally repugnant.  Factions could start
building up real hate towards one another.

People have gone to war over less emotional issues than this one.

>Who would have thought that choice 1 would lead to our current mess.

Agreed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:27:45 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:


>In a previous article, mhl@spirit.ece.cmu.edu (Mikko H. Lipasti) says:

>>In article <_2gyjhm@rpi.edu> mcgead@operators.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary) writes:
>>>>few words, on behalf of the 25 million unborn children destroyed since
>>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>                                        no such thing
>>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Actually, Webster defines "child" as an unborn or recently born person.
>>Look it up!
>>
>>Next time, avoid revealing your ignorance by checking your dictionary
>>before spewing off at the mouth.
>>

>Funny.....My Webster's (copywrite 1990) defines "child" as follows:

>Child, n, pl. children 1. A son or daughter. 2. a young person or baby.
>3. a person thought of as the product of a given place, time, influence,
>ect. 4. a descendant. 5. a person inmature in judgement.

>Going down through the next 6 entries (childbirth to childlike) I see
>no reference to "unborn person".

Assuming you're a man, I suppose that if at some time you had a pregnant
wife, you would refer to the baby she was carrying as a fetus, throughout the
entire 9 months of pregnancy, and would encourage her to say whenever the
baby kicked, 'honey, the fetus just moved.'

-ACF
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Clinton and Education
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:28:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.210310.19181@afterlife.ncsc.mil> acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:
>Rush Limbaugh has several times made vicious remarks about the intelligence
>of Arkansans as an attack on Clinton's educational record.

Well, this is true but did you also know that Rush apologized for these
statements?  He may have made them anew since his apology but I haven't
heard him do this.

>Well, I propose this question: Bush's Sec. of Education, Lamar Alexander,
>is from a state with similar educational standings: Tennessee. Generally,
>both rank in the bottom five in state-by-state rankings. If that
>is so horrible, then how come Rush isn't calling for Lamar Alexander
>to be fired / resign?

Even in a bad system some will not be stopped from achieving.  Rush
attacked the system not individuals.

>Bill Clinton is not responsible for the shoody state of his school's 
>educational system. What is to blame is that, throughout the Southeast,
>the states have traditionally neglected education. Both Clinton
>and Alexander worked to improve their state's education systems.

>Now, if Arkansas had fallen in the rankings during Clinton's tenure,
>I'd accept Rush's arguments. But, his attacks on Clinton as far
>as education is concerned are a load of bull.

Well would you like to tell us (as I'm sure someone will) where Arkansas
ranked before Clinton and where it ranks now?  I don't have the figures
but I'm reasonably certain that it was near the bottom then and it is
still near the bottom now.  When there is nowhere to go but up and you
don't go up I see it as a problem.  Perhaps you don't.

>Oh, as a former Tennesseean, I have a lot of respect for Uncle Lamar
>(some friends of mine and I called him that when he was chancellor
>of the University of Tennessee). He, like Clinton, did wonders
>for the state of education in the south.

Exactly what *wonders* did Clinton perform?  I'm not being a smart ass
but I hear this from Democrats all the time.  Yet, not one has ever been
able to tell me anything specific he did but put more emphasis on it (a
noble act) and provide more money (a noble act if results are positive).
Has there been any substantial improvement in any important area?

Thanks, 

Tim
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

TO: mitch@lsil.com,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh


  .Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
  .Message-ID: <1992Aug13.232412.15209@lsil.com>
  .Date: 13 Aug 92 23:24:12 GMT
  .Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com

MS.In article 77597@ut-emx.uucp, zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
  .>In article <1992Aug10.221933.3922@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
  .>>open mind.  Calling yourself openminded is what I object to.  Conservatism
  .>>by nature is neanderthal and close-minded, just look up the definition in t
  .>>dictionary.
  .>I'd sure love to see the dictionary with that definition.  Traditionally,
  .>"conservative" had some connection with its root, "conserve".  Conservatives
  .>wanted to conserve the old ways.  Of course, today the term means, in the
  .>US political arena, one who distrusts government.  I fail to see the connect
  .>to a branch of the human family tree which died out long ago.

MS.I agree about the neanderthal part but I disagree with you about the distrust
  .in government.  Conservatives have always looked towards the government for
  .a more and bigger presence when it comes to religious issues, public funding
  .of parochial schools (i.e. government vouchers, school choice, etc.), and
  .restricting the private medical decisions of women.  Conservatives have alway
  .strived to create as big a defense industry as possible, all funded by taxing
  .its citizens.  Conservatives have always been for having more police power
  .administrated by the government.

I think one has to be careful with the difference between the original
intent of the 'conservative' party vs individual platforms of candidates
who profess to be a part of that party.  Conservative refers to the
extent of gov't control.  Republicans ostensibly support
decentralization - less gov't dependency and size.  The Dems - or
liberals - believe in a liberal gov't - BIG! and centralized control.
More often than not, I get the impression they support the 'Republic' form
of gov't, more socialistic I can accept.  I would like to see us return
to Capitalism.  On the other hand, conservatives have supported the
concept that certain things could not be held by the private industry,
such as national defense.  Reagan's drive for a larger defense is not,
however, a Republican platform, but a personal one - whether right or
wrong.  So, I disagree with your statement that conservatives have
always looked to gov't on religious issues, etc.  Those were personal
political platforms.


Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . It's only a hobby ... only a hobby ... only a
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: FLAMEAGE!! 
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:11:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.151123.19331@news.uiowa.edu> bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte) writes:
>Dear fellow netters,
>	Now, Imay be new to this news stuff, but it seems to me
>that all of this Rush flaming in a newsgroup called 
>		alt.FAN.rush-limbaugh
>is oddly misplaced.  It seems that that sort of thing should go
>under alt.FLAME.rush-limbaugh.

	Now, now, don't feel bad about being new - you'll catch on. We
love Rush, really, so much, in fact that some of us feel it necessary
to offer some constructive critisism now and again. It's not flamage,
really, just advice. Honest. Truly. You bet.

	

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

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Will Raise YO
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

TO: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG

  .Subject: Re: Clinton Will Raise YOUR Taxes - NOT!
  .Message-ID: <mykes.0c83@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
  .Date: 12 Aug 92 03:41:24 PST



MS.> We had to "raise taxes"...    i.e., we had to put a lot of our disposable
  .> income into debt repayment.   We had to eat beans and cheese.   We had to

MS.This isn't raising taxes - it's living below your means - cutting expendature
  .That's what we need to do as a country.  Cut spending in half or more.  And
  .rather than suffer through higher taxes which doesn't address the problem of
  .the govt. spending all its income and then charging on its charge cards!

Absolutely correct!  We need to stop spending - the Dems want to spend
more and more.

MS.> put one car "on blocks", and use the money saved to pay off debt.   It took
  .> mroe than a year of scrimping to get it to the point where we were paying
  .> more capital than interest.  Now, we are finally just about out of debt.
  .>

MS.> Why can't out politico's see that government isn't that different
  .> from good common sense money management around the house?
  .>

MS.The party in control of the House of Representatives for the last 40 years
  .spends everything it gets its hands on and then some.  This is the problem.
  .Living beyond our means.  Artificially raising the overall standard of living
  .by redistribution of the wealth and distribution of wealth that isn't really
  .there.

You are right again.  I wish it wasn't so "artificial", however.  That
higher standard of living is very real, until it collapses around our
ears.  I don't think that zero debt is necessarily our nirvana, any more
than I would wish to be totally out of debt, personally.  It might be
nice, but unless I was independently wealthy, I probably wouldn't 'own' a
home, either.

The Dems would 'tax us into prosperity'.  But Clinton keeps on
appealling to those that want something for nothing.

Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . I don't want it now, I want it RIGHT now!
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton (was: Re: Buchanan's speech)
Date: 23 Aug 92 02:58:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <1992Aug23.004337.19230@leela.cs.orst.edu> chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
>As for the "I could stayed home and baked cookies and had teas" remark. Come on
>now.  How many attorneys do you know?  Marilyn Quayle is an attorney, and does
>not stay home to bake cookies while her children at school.  Phyllis Schafly's
>children, I understand, live with relatives in another state, so she can pursue
>her career as a conservative advocate of "family values."  Whatever.
>
>Many, many women in this country hold jobs outside the home. (Reality.) Some by
>preference, more (I assume) by necessity.  Jumping all over Ms.Clinton's remark
>makes a person seem pretty oblivious to American life in 1992.

Even as I agree with this defense of Hilary Clinton, I think the poster
misses the point of the her statement. As I see the remark, she
was saying she did not take on the traditional role of a _politician's_
wife, not that she was spurning and / or attacking traditional motherhood.

Now, I'll agree that the remark was not very politically astute. The far
right is using it to assault Bill Clinton because they know that, on
the issues, Bush is in for a heck of a fight that there's no guarantee
he can win. Bush has _never_ won an campaian on issues alone; he 
flip-flops too often for that ot be effective. Without attempting to tear
the opposition down with vicious attacks, Bush's reelection chances
would be much less. 
-- 
The world is not analog. The world is digital,
with an incredible number of bits.
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist)                        <fnord>
E-Mail acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4448 alt.rush-limbaugh:3597
From: mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: My religion is great, yours is Bullshit
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:08:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker) writes:

>In article <BswBF5.J44@acsu.buffalo.edu>, mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J.
>Bernhardt) writes:

>> 	Rush had stated on previous occasions that he believes that religion
>> must subordinate itself to the laws of the state. (The case of the Indians and peyote (sp?) comes to mind.)  

>Would Rush say the people who try to stop the operations of abortion
>clinics for religious reasons are in the wrong then?

	By his reasoning, it would depend on the tactics used.  Peaceful 
protest is one thing.  Violent opposition is quite another.  From what I have
heard from his shows, he has not contradicted himself on this point.
-- 
Matt Bernhardt
University of Buffalo             THIS SPACE FOR RENT.
mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Question about Clinton an
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

To: maj1@Ra.MsState.Edu,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton

   .Subject: Question about Clinton and Taxes
   .Message-ID: <1992Aug14.115554.28230@ra.msstate.edu>
   .Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 11:55:54 GMT

MAJ.When Clinton says he only plans to tax the rich, doe he mean individuals
   .or is he including Corporations in this statement as well.. Coming from
   .the party he's in I'd say both, but I'm willing to give him the benefit
   .of the doubt, at least at present..

Why give him any benefit?  He certainly will not give you any!  Tsk.
What I find so frstrating is the fact that people actually believe that
taxing the rich and the corps will help them!

MAJ.If he does plan on raising taxes on corporations though, why does
   .he think that will help??

It won't

   If Corporations are the giant evil that
   .democrats claim them to be, andd hey I'll be honest to some extant
   .they are right, they'll just cut their losses, which will result
   .in extremely high unemployment..

Right.  And lower tax revenues, and less saving, and more medical
problems, and higher taxes to fix the problem (according to Dems), and
the mad circle continues.

Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . Unable to locate Coffee -- Operator Halted!
                                       
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4521 alt.rush-limbaugh:3642
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Tax Fairness
Distribution: usa
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 12 Aug 92 03:49:53 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <LARRY.92Aug11110721@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
> I get it now: taxing the rich is equivalent to Communism. Projected away,
> again.. (Sigh).
>

You act as if the rich aren't taxed.  They are - and heavily.  More heavily
than the vast majority of americans.  Taking everything from the rich
is communism.  Class warfare against the rich is communism.  Not projections.


> L.
> "Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
>  I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
>  Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\
>  (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
> And, by golly, to a soul, they all wore *suits*, in this place called Hell.

--
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
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% f
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:52:07 GMT


In a previous article, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) says:

>>You just can't get
>>something for nothing.  The constitution grants us 'the right to the
>>pursuit of happiness', not a right to happiness.  There's a rather big
>>difference.  And the Dems have never understood it.  Or perhaps, they do
>>understand too well, and get rich and powerful over it.

Funny...
Aren't an overwhelming majority of the rich and powerful conservative
Republicans?

>>
>>Regards,
>>Todd
>
>This reminds me of the ABC news lastnight, where they were discussing the
>so-called failed economic agenda of Bush.  A thousand points of light was
>discussed and then Jennings says, "but that doesn't help Jack Mimmers of
>Ohio..he's out of work."  Like, the gov. is supposed to guarantee his job? 

Guarantee?  No.
But when our country's jobs are being handed to third-world countries by
Republican ideas of "Free Trade", I think it's a legitimate point.

>When is someone going to tell Peter, Dan, and Tom that this is not a
>socialist country.  Did they forget?  They are whiners.  Let us now call
>them whiners.  

I don't think anyone was saying this was a socialist nation.  But I don't
think the idea of our government working to provide incentives to business
to keep jobs on shore is a socialist idea, either...

>
>Ted K.
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (William M. Porter)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Buchanan Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world,usa,na
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 08:32:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.194306.24808@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (Alex
Crain) writes...

>	              What your saying is that any democrat can attack
>bush on any issue, regardless of whether or not the dems are guilty of
>it, because Bush is the candidate and they arn't, right?
> 
>	Of course, the difference between Pat and Bill is that Pat lost 
>and Bill won, so it would be OK, I presume for Ted Kennedy to chastize
>George Bush for womanizing, right?

I think Mr. Crain has something of a point here. If we who support the
president for reelection wish to link Mr. Clinton with Ted Kennedy, Maxine
Waters, Mario Cuomo and Hillary Rodham, we must be prepared for the "guilt by
association" argument to be used in return.

It is certainly true that neither Pat Buchanan nor Dan Quayle has ever been or
will ever be called a war hero. It is also true that George Bush was....

I became eligible for the draft in 1969 myself. Having no enthusiasm for an
expenses-paid trip to Vietnam (or anywhere else for that matter) I took
advantage of my college deferment until 1973, at which point my lottery number
(67) was well out of the range of those still being drafted. While I honor and
respect those who answered the call of duty, I do not personally blame anybody
for being lucky enough to have missed the show. I do not blame Mr. Clinton
simply for not serving.

What bothers me a little about Clinton's case is that he seems to have broken
his own word and employed his own intellect to put a noble facade on his own
timidity. I didn't want to go to Vietnam myself: I had no desire to die for a
cause that seemed pretty murky to me. I tried to convince myself I was a
pacifist, but couldn't. And I had to admit that the government has the
authority to draft and send soldiers to conflicts that the soldiers might not
fully understand--or agree with. I got lucky. The tragedy of Vietnam is not
that the government's use of its young men and women was illegitimate, but that
it was legimate but irresponsible.

But this is not a winning issue for the Republicans and they'd better deal with
it very carefully.

William Porter  * * * Classical Languages: University of Houston
Internet: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu /or/ CompuServe: 75430,1351

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh