HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 01:12:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.025044.9623@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <PATRICK.93Jan1095848@blanco.is.rice.edu> patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan1.144709.24457@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>   As of Jan.20, 1993, President Hillary Clinton (and First Man Bill)
>>   will give us two new traditions in America:
>>
>>[the usual Chaney woman-bashing, anyone-left-of-Attila-the-Hun-bashing
>>deleted -- you've only seen this a few hundred times, already...PLH]
>
>Coming from the race-bashing, anything-right-of-Jane-Fonda-hating
>Lying Klansman from Texas.. of course we have seen your lies a few
>thousand times, and that's just counting lies about me. 

Oooh....   What an *original* comeback!    <sarcasm>

>>What do you know -- brand new year, same old psychopath...
>
>Yup, you're still here. Too bad, huh?

Ditto what I said before.

   [deletia]
>
>And of course you know I do not threaten people, 
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Huh?????
Here are some selected quotes from last spring out of the mouth of Chaney 
(and the "other" Chaney) after he thought (for no obvious reason) that he 
had done damage to my account following my expose' of his dual identity:

!  with the original harrasser having been punished for this, 
!  it should serve as a lesson to his followers. 
!
!  you have been warned. 
!
!  someone [... ] has been busted by their sysadmin, 
!
!  It's not a threat - it's a promise to visit upon you what has already 
!  been visited on someone else.  
!
!  I advise you to stop this joke right now, unless you want to be next. 
!
!  Someone's account is about to go <splat!> 
!
!  I advise you to cut this out unless you want to be the next person 
!  that gets brought down.
!
!  so that you may wind up having *your* system administator chewing 
!  on your hide
!
!  you've got me going after you now, punk! 

Steve, I think it's safe to say that you have threatened *many* people's 
accounts.


  [more deletia]
>
>Seeing as that I have no alternate personalities and I've never had
>any, and that if I did, you would honestly have evidence, or even a
>sysadmin's evidence to back you up.. why are you going on with this? 

Are you asking me to repost the details of my discovery that you were 
using a second account to pose as a lame-minded "pro-choicer" under 
a false name?  Your previous sysadmin told me on the phone that you owned 
the account where this fictitious "pro-choicer" was posting from.  He also 
told this to Dean K. when he inquired about it several weeks later.



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
From: gerberrl@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Richard L. Gerberding)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: 5 Jan 1993 16:21:01 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: gerberrl@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Richard L. Gerberding)
NNTP-Posting-Host: o200c-1.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1993Jan5.090649.4861@memstvx1.memst.edu>  
dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> 
> So what do you conservative types think of the Bush pardons?  Over on
> your second favorite newsgroup, alt.fan.dan.quayle, they're pretty
> upset about it.  I don't think anyone is really surprised Bush did it,
> though. I guess things will be pretty boring scandal-wise now that the
> party of the 'moral right' won't be in charge anymore.
> 
> -Scott

I'm a conservative type who is all for it.  In this month's reader's  
digest (maybe last months, I read it while at home over break) there is an  
article by Fred Barnes about how special prosecutor Walsh went after  
people for anything that might have caused anything to happen.  Walsh has  
spent OVER 20 MILLION DOLLARS, and what has he discovered as a result of  
this - NOTHING.  I realize the need for watchdogs and keeping politicians  
honest, but I also think that the special prosecutor law should have been  
modified so that there is a limit on what may be spent - say 5 million or  
so (funny how that seems like pocket change anymore) and if no solid leads  
are found, the investigation should end.  Walsh for the past year or so  
has been desperate to find anything he can to save face.  I have a feeling  
that many of the people so upset over the pardons are the same ones which  
get upset over all bailouts, but the S&L bailouts, while the need for them  
should have been prevented, are helping the people who had money in them,  
while Walsh is throwing away millions which will benefit no one.  As for  
people who wonder why Bush would pardon people he claims are innocent, Why  
not?  Is it better to see how many more millions could be thrown down the  
drain?  
--

\===================================================================\|||||
|\  Richard Gerberding              Disclaimer: Like I even know     \||||
||\                                           what they think!!!      \|||
|||\ gerberrl@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu                                 \||
||||\===================================================================\|

Funny, but in the Clinton Cabinet that "looks like America", there aren't  
many conservatives. 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Date: 12 Jan 1993 01:09:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ryanm@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) says:

>
>Personally I was iritated with Slicks winning.  However, I feel it is time
>that the demos have a crack at it, all on their own.  If they fail then
>the republicans will be in solid.  If they succeed than I guess I will
>join the rest of the poor who are taxed to death by Taxula :)
>
>I am taking a wait and see position.  BTW if you haven't guessed I am a
>conservitive.  --Ryan

       No shit.  Most "conservitives" show as great a command of English
grammar and spelling as you do.  See you at the inauguration, and good luck
with that remedial reading class.

-- 
    "The biggest problem with reading [Usenet] is there is so much and it 
is all so interesting.  It is easy to be enamored with it.  Be selective
about which groups you read.  It could mean your job, your family, or your
college career."  --Ed Krol, _The Whole Internet User's Guide and Catalog_
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<C0HnG3.5C3@news.rich.bnr.ca>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:13:59 GMT

In article <C0HnG3.5C3@news.rich.bnr.ca> gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson) writes:



   |>Notice heterosexuals are still (perversely) protected by the existing
   |>anti-discrimination ordinances in Colorado.
   |>
   |>-Ric

   No, they are not protected.  Legally, Heterosexuals are not a "protected
   minority", this ammendment simply says that having an "alternate" life style
   does not qualify one as a protected minority.  The situation is much like when
   I rented an apartment from a place which refused to rent to college students,
   hardly fair to students, but they do not qualify as a "protected minoity".

Can one be fired strictly for being homosexual in Colorado?
--


Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Religious physics
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Distribution: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:06:30 GMT

Rush went wide and flatulant a couple of days ago, ranting again about 
the Evil Scientists whose godless conspiracies to pursue federal grant 
money once again threaten to destroy our free society.

I know why I keep listening to this guy: he's downright entertaining!

At first he made a clear and valid point about science's failure to 
adequately convey information to the common man. Right on, Rush.

Then, by example, the paper's announcement of the discovery of a 
large area of dark matter set him off:

	"And *what* is dark matter, anyway?! ..."

Somehow this thread of confusion was woven into a queen-sized blanket of
scientific conspiracy theory, followed by an orthogonal turn at Tucumcari,
and ending with a tweak of the big nose of scientific atheism.

But Rush's contention that the bulk of astrophysicists are not religious
is badly flawed. It's just that some of them tend toward those funny 
Eastern religions instead of the beliefs of righteous Christians and Jews.
(Close enough, eh?)

His stumblings around bound/boundless universe paradoxes were up to the
usual Limbaugh Scientific Standards. Great stuff, Rush!

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..
Tularosa: tullies, roses, lava, white sands, and home of THEM! (atomic ants).


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Clinton and the deficit
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 13:20:39 PST

In <YfIWaPa00iUzE6VoZF@andrew.cmu.edu>, Gary James Patalsky 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.

That reminds me of a joke I heard recently...

Bill Clinton will push to make the condom, rather than the donkey, the symbol
of the Democratic Party.  Why?  Well, it stands for inflation, it protects a
lot of pricks, halts production and gives people a false sense of security
while being screwed.

The same could be said for a lot of Republicans, too...


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
From: ij59@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
Subject: Mail Bouncing
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 05:42:38 GMT

 I got an A on my report on Rush called "The King of Radio Innovation" in 
English class! I was thinking of mailing Rush a copy but I'm not sure after 
all this I've been reading here about mail being returned. I'm wondering if 
he would even get around to reading it, much less send a response.
  I loved the 12/4/92 summary, whoever it was who posted that,it was very 
informative.
 By the way, incase no one's added it yet, the Carol Moseley Braun update 
theme is the theme from "The Jeffersons". I'm not sure if it has an official 
title or who sings it.

             --Jeff "Using his brother's account" A. Miller
"The American economy cannot be revived without someone getting rich: why not 
me?"--Rush, in TWTOTB
 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:33:07 GMT

dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>> Nathan Engle (nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu) wrote:
>> : > I guess things will be pretty boring scandal-wise now that the
>> : >party of the 'moral right' won't be in charge anymore.
>> : 
>> :    Don't count on it. Remember Billy Carter?

>What did Billy Carter do? I remember something about him urinating on an
>airport runway. Is this what you're talking about? 

    No, actually what I was thinking about was Billy's role as a 
"procurement consultant" for Mohamar Khadafi in his attempts to buy 
some American transport planes. Technically speaking I don't think that 
any laws were violated but Khadafi wasn't a particularly good friend of 
the US even back in '78 or so when all this stuff was going down. I can 
remember hearing my parents and some of their Democrat friends wishing 
that Billy would find some more legitimate business interests. I'm sure 
he enjoyed the beer he bought with his consulting fees, but I don't think 
anyone could make much of an argument that Billy's advocacy was helpful 
to US foreign policy. We knew even then that Khadafi was a sponsor of 
international terrorists, and while it might have been technically within 
the limits of the law it was still a major embarassment. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 02:38:09 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:

>  >dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> 
>   >In article <C0J7zq.J7G@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com 
>   >(mike myke schwartz) writes:
>   >> 
>   >> It sickened and withered when the Democratic Fascist Party of America
>   >> gained enough power to use it's army of secret police and government
>   >> agencies to maintain its power.  They stand in the way of the
>   >> country's best interests to maintain its power.  Their clear desire is
>   >> to control all three branches of our government.
> 
>  >What a conspiracy theorist! The Democrats have an "army of secret 
>  >police"? You can't honestly think this. Isn't the goal of the Repub-
>  >lican party also to "control all three branches of government"?
>  >-Scott
> 
> Well, one thing we can all be certain of, no matter how you feel about
> the process, is that there will be no special persecutors appointed to
> investigate the White House during the next four years.  Guaranteed.
> 
> |===========================================================================|
> |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        |
> |===========================================================================|


The Special Prsecutors Statute was allowed to die in Congress on Decemer 
15th, 1992 thanks to the efforts of the Republican Leadership of the 
Senate And the House with a lot of high pressure help from the White 
House, and for obvious reasons.  There are a lot of other shoes left to 
drop which the Republicans would rather you not hear drop.   Now you are 
blaming the Dems for that cynical actions of the Corruption Party(tm).
My, My.  Typical Neoconservative drivel.  Typical.  Actually we may not 
need it for Clinton.  Only the Republicans in the last 20 year seem 
unable to follow our nations laws and when caught breaking them, seem to 
feel the need to get invlolved with long drawn out massive coverup 
schemes.  Nixon, Reagn, Bush.  Swell buncha law abiding Presidents, hunh?
But that does not mean that Clinton will be that way.  To insinuate that 
as you did is unfair, it is .... un-American and unpatriotic kid.  Now 
you don't want people calling you un-American do you?  Just because with 
no reason to believe Clinton would break the law you intimated he would, 
huh? Now behave yourself and keep your trash-mouth shut OK?  No 
slandering good men without good cause.


Pope Charles    SubGenius Pope Of Houston      LOrrrrr, don't they teach 
kids today no manners?

--
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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea's school ...
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:07:00 GMT
Organization: UNLV

Clinton is Hypocritical in the school issue. Not because
his daugther shouldnt go there, she should. The reason is he
was criticizing government for having special privilages, in
fact he made a big deal about turning down an Air Force One
trip and a stay at some government house because we couldnt 
afford it. (really just to make Bush look bad) Now that he has
gotten his daughter in to a school by skipping the lengthy
waitinging list he deserved to get attacked because he
attacked others the same way.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:03:18 GMT

mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Nathan Engle (nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu) wrote:
>: dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>: >So what do you conservative types think of the Bush pardons?
>: 
>:     Well, I'm a liberal type, but I honestly think it was for the best. 

>One of the few intellectuals around, IMO :)

    Why thank you, Mike. That's about the nicest thing you ever said to 
me (sniff)... [sorry, married life is definitely warping my sense of humor]

>: We (liberals) have an opportunity 
>: to bury at least one of our hatchets and I think that we should jump at it. 
>: We have nothing to lose by being magnanimous and we might have a great deal 
>: to gain.
>: 

>This is very much in clintonspeak. :)

    "Hey, them's fightin' woids..."

    Frankly I hope you're right and that my comment really *is* Clintonspeak
(that is to say, I hope that Clinton also attempts to take a concilliatory 
line) - it would be best for everyone concerned, and (most important of all)
it might possibly be very politically expedient. 

>But from what you write, you obviously either believe the men to be guilty
>before they've been proven guilty or you believe them to have been proven
>guilty (beyond a shadow of a doubt :).

    Perhaps so. I'm certainly not sure why innocent men need to be pardoned, 
but I agree that it was ballsy on Bush's part because it doesn't necessarily 
reflect the best historical light on himself. I really do think that Bush's 
motivations for issuing the pardons had very little if anything to do with 
fear of what would come out in trial, and almost everything to do with the 
desire to spare good men the ordeal of having to defend themselves.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ZsowwB1w165w@major.panix.com> <1993Jan6.173043.9393@kadsma.kodak.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 21:31:49 GMT

<In article <1993Jan6.173043.9393@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

<   Gays aren't calling for the use of the word 'fag' to be made illegal.
 
	No? Is Pajerek familiar with the concept of "Speech Codes"?

<   >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.
<   >

<   For someone who has been denied a job because they were black, or
<   female, or gay, it sure does look like a solution worth trying. 

	Yes, and Draco was a popular dictator in ancient
	Greece... at first.

<Your
<surname suggests Irish ancestry. Did you ever have to contend with
<'No Irish need apply'?  Did any of your grandparents?

	
	Those signs haven't been seen for years; in fact, they
	were antiques long before the Civil Rights Act was 
	passed.

	Can Pajerek explain this? According to him, only
	Big Brother Government can end discrimination.....
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:17:31 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

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

> >decades. Does "equal protection under law" mean that laws must be
> >created to specifically protect each and every group?
> 
> I would think not, unless a case can be made that a historical pattern
> of discrimination exists.

I'm tempted to agree with you, but mere statistical patterns which
assume that all people are exactly the same are used to "prove"
discrimination these days.

> > 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?
> 
> Gays aren't calling for the use of the word 'fag' to be made illegal.

Beg to differ - in many cases, that's exactly what one group or another
is looking for.

> What they're asking for is the right to compete for jobs, housing, and
> so on without having to deal with being turned down *simply because
> they're gay*. I doubt that many people have been refused employment
> on the grounds that they were left-handed. The 'Cracker Barrel'
> restaurant chain, however, flatly states that they will deny
> employment to any and all gay applicants, strictly on those grounds.

Never heard of them, but I'll take your word for it. If I even do see a
Cracker Barrel restaurant, I'll take my appetite elsewhere.

> >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.
> 
> For someone who has been denied a job because they were black, or
> female, or gay, it sure does look like a solution worth trying. Your
> surname suggests Irish ancestry. Did you ever have to contend with
> 'No Irish need apply'?  Did any of your grandparents?

They did, but people basically realized that it was stupid to turn away
15% of the population of a city - either as employees or customers - and
the signs disappeared without any assistance from the government. My
grandfather died shortly after the term "Affirmative Action" was coined.
He said that he would sooner scrub stalls in a barn than use his
ancestry as an excuse for his failure.


--
"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