HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: flagg@blind-lemon.cs.unlv.edu (Scott Cunningham)
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Organization: UNLV
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 20:14:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.080407.3152@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU  
(David Marc Nieporent) writes:

 "1) He [Clinton] did not protest while in the USSR.  He protested while in  
England.
	The big gripe about this is not so much IF or WHERE he protested but  
WHY he felt he had to hide it.  First he denied slipping out of the draft, then  
he tried to justify slipping out of the draft.  Now he isn't coming clean on  
if, when, and where he protested the Vietnam Conflict.  Wouldn't it be better  
for him if he would just tell the truth and let the majority of the people  
decide if they agree with his actions.

 "2) There is no such thing as "protesting a country."  He protested against
 "	the Vietnam war.
	First, is flag burning not protesting a country?  Yes there is a such  
thing as protesting a country.  Did Clinton do this, no one knows.  You can't  
say that he protested against the Vietnam Conflict because you weren't there,  
and if there is one thing you can say its that Clinton has a history of  
distorting the truth about his past, especially (sic) his actions during the  
time that most American men (aged 18 to 25) were fighting in a foreign land.

 "Vote Clinton/Gore '92.   Four more weeks!!!   		"Bloody urine"

	How about Vote for who you think should be president '92

________________________________________________________________________
Scott Cunningham \ We're the NSA                                        \
Username: flagg  \ So your the ones I hear on the other end of my phone \
                 \ No, that's the FBI                                   \
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7540 talk.politics.misc:52144 alt.politics.elections:17109 alt.politics.bush:9374 alt.politics.clinton:10754
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:28:32 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

>Anyway, it's all your speculation that BC/AG will raise taxes.  The B/Q
>argument is that "the revenues that Clinton wants to raise can't come
>from his proposals, therefore he's going to raise taxes on the middle class."
>Unprovable hypothesis -- why not say "he'll cut programs, instead."

Now, if I believed for a moment that a Clinton/Gore administration
would cut government programs, they would have my vote.  Instead, I'm
either going to vote Libertarian (*real* cuts) or Bush (increases,
*sigh*, but much less than Clinton/Gore would increase them, and
something more than a when-Hell-freezes-over chance of winning) or
write in Dave Barry (It's *time* for an anarchist in the White House!)
-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:15:42 GMT

sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:

>>Oh, we pay taxes as a group, now? EACH PERSON pays taxes. The tax rate on
>>EACH PERSON is what is important, because THAT PERSON is the one person
>>who must pay THEIR OWN TAXES. The tax rate on the rich went down, YES THAT
>>IS AN UNDENIABLE FACT, and that is what is important, as the tax rate paid
>>by EACH RICH PERSON PAID was LOWER, THAT is what is important.
>>
>
>Ah Ha!
>So it doesn't matter if lower tax rates on the rich BROUGHT MORE REVENUE 
>(money) FROM THE RICH.  It's that percent thing.  It's the principle of the 
>thing.  We have to make people THINK that the rich are paying more, even though
>they may not be.  Envy, Envy, Envy.  Oh, and God FORBID that the rich may 
>actually be making MORE money.  Shhhhhh!  Don't tell people that they are
>paying more tax dollars either!

Susan, don't put words in my mouth. What is more important to the individual
taxpayer? I'll tell you what. It is how much of your salary is Uncle Sam
going to take this year? For the rich, that percentage went down during the
Reagan/Bush years and for everyone else that percentage went up.

Your echoing of the "class envy" claims of the Bush campaign ring just as
hollow as when the Bush campaign says them. There is no class envy, just a
revulsion to the failed trickle down economics of Reagan/Bush.

>>Sure, the "rich" as a group paid more in TOTAL taxes, because the RICH ARE
>>GETTING RICHER and the more money you make the more taxes you pay (if you
>>are honest).
>
>Veeeeeeeery Goooooooood!  Don't forget, the more taxes you pay, (because you 
>have gotten RICHER??!!) the more REVENUE, and thus the more money for the 
>government to SPEND.

I never forgot that. It's just to the individual taxpayer that tidbit of
information don't mean jack. Especially to the middle and lower classes.

>>
>>Yes, I most certainly do call what happened in Reaganomics during Reagan's
>>and Bush's tenures as a TAX CUT, as that is EXACTLY what is was.
>
>Huh?  You just said above that more taxes were being paid!  The RATES were cut.
>The TAX DOLLARS were not.

Susan, how many times do I need to say it? To the individual taxpayer, their
tax IS the RATE. Not how much revenue the government collects from everyone
in their tax bracket. And that tax went DOWN for the rich under Reagan/Bush
and for everyone else that tax went UP. I guess you must like paying higher
taxes.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6754 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5028
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:28:21 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <cortez.718440319@milton> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>> 
>I don't believe you for a second. You know, California, press in tow,
>pulls over at a Burger King with a "now hiring" sign and declares
>that it's a sign things are "turning around in America."

This is your basic problem, your mind is closed (IMO).  I really did 
not recall this event.  On the face of it I can see how you could
argue that this is an indication that things are getting worse what
with buisnesses hiring people as indicated by the sign.

> [Burger King stuff deleted]
>
>So go on, explain it. Enlighten us as to how to interpret Dan's
>statements consistent with your theory that he is able to think.
>
I would be difficult since I am not aware of this incident.  Furthermore,
I am not aware that anyone can make a proof describing someone's 
ability to think, not even your's and you are obviously a thinker!

By the way, do you have a problem with Bob Woodward's claim that 
Dan Quayle would be an effective President should something happen
to Bush?  You remember Bob - Watergate... Nixon...

Mike Best
From: sjs@netcom.com (Stephen Schow)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Anyone have the transcript for the VP debate?
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:53:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

Anyone know where I can get the transcript from the debate between VP
candidates?
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schow    | But you don't have to use the claw, if you
sjs@netcom.com | pick the pear with the big paw paw......
               | Have I given you a clue......?
               |                       - Baloo the Bear
------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:14:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct12.153738.17244@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>  krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <77xzn0@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>>->>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>->>->87% of americans have comprehensive health
>>->>->care plans.
>>->>
>>->>can you support this statement?
>
>NEW SOURCE FOR 87% - BILL CLINTON DURING THE OCT 11 DEBATE
>
>He said that 35 million do not have health care.  Run the numbers.
>87.333% have health care (give or take a percent)!

Now all you have to do is find a source that says "comprehensive"...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:48:01 GMT

<1992Oct12.040509.9447@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
><1992Oct11.010544.21220@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>><BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) :
>>...
>>>As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
>>>future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
>>>and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
>>>then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
>>>against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....
>>
>>We'll see your truncheons and raise you fully automatic weapons.  We'll
>>get you to your god that much faster. :-)
>>
>Well, I plan to depict the riot police being fully armed, and using
>white posphorus instead of tear gas.  Now, since in my story assulting
>police officers, especially pulling guns on them, would be a capital offense,
>those who escaped would either face on the spot execution,or the death penalty
>after trial.  f course, this would all be televised, to make examples of the
>criminals.   Now, let's see the book buring the PC crowd would stage.

Is this some more of those "family values" the alleged pro-life
Republicans are talking about?  "on the spot execution", "death penalty",
and all for just standing around an abortion clinic.  Damn, Jesus would be
proud.


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: i don't want no rush-tv
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:55:49 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.185339.8311@sdc.com>, norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman) writes:
> In article <105120009@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy) writes:
> >
> >and his live audience is obnoxious-- they have no clue when to
> >laugh or snicker and they generally detract from the program.
> >
> Perhaps it would be better in CinemaScope.  The slow zoom the cameraman uses 
> when St. Rush launches into one of his sermons is kind of eerie.  The 
> commercials were actually more entertaining: Chuck Heston for the NRA and the 
> aborted feti of the Conservative Party's Illinois Senate candidate (mighty 
> good with mustard!).
> 
Oh, so you might have gone better with ketchup or mayo when you were in
that stage???  Or perhaps you believe you never went thru that physical
phase like the rest of us who made it to birth.........

                                                 H.R. Holm

*comment ny own, standard disclaimers
 post replies to the newsgroup, please*

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him #2
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:12:24 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.040509.9447@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>Well, I plan to depict the riot police being fully armed, and using
>white posphorus instead of tear gas.  Now, since in my story assulting
>police officers, especially pulling guns on them, would be a capital offense,
>those who escaped would either face on the spot execution,or the death penalty
>after trial.  f course, this would all be televised, to make examples of the

I suppose that in your world, defending yourself against a police
assault would also be an "assault".  How convenient.


Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER JOSEPH McCARTHY BUSH
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:28:25 GMT
Organization: IBM Rochester
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <1992Oct15.172001.22624@seq.uncwil.edu>, session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
|> rovero@wake.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
|> 
|> >There's only one problem with this.  McCarthy went around accurately
|>                                                            ^^^^^^^^^^
|> >calling people communists and making a big deal about it BECAUSE:
|> 
|> Sorry, history shows us that most of his accusations were INACCURATE.
|> 
|> >Communism, especially the brand of Marxist-Leninism actually in
|> >practice during the 20th century, IS and WAS EVIL!  It was WRONG.
|> >It was the greatest threat to freedom and real national independence
|> >ever seen on the earth. 
|> >
|> >What really pisses the liberals off:  Joe McCarthy was RIGHT!
|> 
|> Yes, Marxist-Leninist Communism was pretty evil, and to just it as evil,
|> MCCarthy was right. However, his methods of "routing it out" were WRONG,
|> WRONG, WRONG, again as history has shown us.

I'm sorry...  Karl Marx evil?  Marx dreamed of a utopian world, where all
races could work together united.  I have my doubts about his economic
principles, but there is no way he was evil and bent on taking over the
entire world to rule as dictator.  Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, now there
are some evil dictators.  Communism was never truly what Marx intented,
just as American democracy is nothing like what was envisioned by the
Greeks.  There is nothing inherently evil about any economic system.


McCarthy, on the other hand, employed many techniques used by STALIN,
HITLER, and LENIN!  So Joe McCarthy was a hero to the conservative
fear mongers of the time who didn't have anyone to have since the
war was over.  The last thing this country needs is a two-bit politician
like George Herbert Hoover Bush running around having his own 
communist witch hunt.

Jared Dahl
"America is neither democratic or capitalistic!"

Opinions expressed are mine, not my employers
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Polls, impacts on the masses
Keywords: Las Vegas counts more
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:15:53 GMT

In article <1b4k8rINN5ph@male.EBay.Sun.COM>, checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) writes:

|> Well, there is one barometer that is being totally overlooked by the media.
|> This "poll" so to speak has a tremendous "track record", in these issues
|> of who is leading who.
|> When you consider the financial impacts to many "businesses" the election
|> will touch, and since in this country as well as all the others, "cash is
|> king", the line / poll currently at Las Vegas is well in favor of Bush.
|> This is where the big money, the pulse of many things comes and goes.

	Interesting, since gambling on elections is illegal as far as I know,
even in Vegas. The odds in London are (or rather were, last week)

	Clinton to win: 3-1
	Bush to win:    1-2

Unless these have changed pretty radically, one of the following is true:

	(1) You are wrong
	(2) Vegas gamblers are at odds with European gamblers

My money on is on choice #1, in both bets.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 14:28:20 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


Sure is a lot of newsgroups here.  I've set followups to talk.abortion.

In article <1992Oct8.211540.23545@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
 
>Suppose your mother, when she was pregnant with you, decided that
>pregnancy and childraising was too much of a burden and decided to,
>instead, terminate her pregnancy. You wouldn't be here! If my mother
>did so, neither would I!
 
I also wouldn't be here if my parents didn't do the nasty when I was
conceived.  Hardly see that as reason for supporting laws to force 
people to do the nasty as much as possible.  On second thought, if
my parents had been doing the nasty as much as possible, it could
have then been my older sister, Gertrude was conceived and I would 
have never had my chance.  Jeez now what can we legislate?
 
Since we are talking hypothetical and all, lets imagine that your
mom was raped, and you are the result of the rape.  I would assume
then you would see that rape as being a positive thing (Especially
since it appears your Mom's feelings don't mean diddly to you).
Would you then support the repeal of rape laws to ensure any future
William.A.Hall.Jr get a chance at life?
 
>That's the biggest reason why abortion should be banned. People are
>*resources*, not "parasites" or "endless stomachs," as some of you on
>the net have claimed. If you don't agree with that statement, throw
>yourself off a roof right now -- human life is, in your opinion,
>worthless.
 
I guess ignoring the woman involved makes the whole abortion issue
so much easier to deal with.  There are many of us that are un-able 
to ignore the woman like you have.  Unfortunately for us, the abortion
issue remains a dilemma for this reason.
 
>William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
 
>"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
>-- Ronald Reagan
 
Its just great to know that we had such a brilliant president for
8 years.  Can you think of anything advocated by those that have
not yet been born?  Take your time and think hard.  Maybe give Rush
a call if you have trouble thinking on your own.
 
Dan King
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:49:12 GMT

In article <98654@bu.edu> tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:
>Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.
>Most people have trouble believing Clinton (indeed, it's the cover story 
>of this week's Time Magazine) and Dan kept hammering the issue.  "Do you really
>trust Clinton to be President?"  I think most would answer "no".  And he and


No, that was an old Time Magazine that Bush is using in his
commercials.  The present one has something like "Bush = Deadmeat" on
the cover (I'm paraphrasing a little, of course).  This was the central
problem with Gore's performance, IMO.  He should have clobbered the Bush
admin for its lies, but didn't do anything beyond a tepid recitation
of the Shrub's broken campaign promises.  This is rich vein to mine,
but Gore barely broke the surface.

>the Admiral had Gore running away from his book on the environment (supposedly
>his strong point), making him look like an extremist.  yeah, he exaggerated
>with the facts, but so did Gore.  Gore looked so stiff.  How many times did
>you hear "Bill Clinton and I think ...." at the beginning of a sentence?
>
>This is NOT to say that Quayle is a good VP or that Bush is a good president.
>But reading the papers today, you have to believe that either 1) they watched
>a different debate, or 2) they are biased.  I mean, it wasn't even close.

I'd say it was closer than you imply.  Gore did appear "presidential"
and formal, so I suppose that would be plus points, especially when
compared to Quayle's rabid puppy appearance.  It's just that Gore passed
up opportunity after opportunity to plant an axe in Quayle.  Quayle didn't
quite as much win as Gore lost.


--
"Moors."  "Moops."  "Moors."  "Moops."  Psssssssssssss.....
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7028 alt.activism.d:3720 alt.politics.elections:15970 alt.politics.bush:8519 alt.politics.clinton:9548 talk.politics.misc:50713 talk.abortion:41803
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:59:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct9.203639.19616@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.015922.5611@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>
>>This is patently false.  87% of americans have comprehensive health
>>care plans.  In addition, there are infertile couples waiting in line
>>to pay for the expenses of pregnant women who will then let those
>>infertile couples adopt her baby.
>>
>>Ted
>
>So you see, there are better alternatives.   Pro-choice people don't
>like to hear about about it.
>
>Pro-choice: Never have been, never will be!!!
>
>Simon

First, 87% of Americans DO NOT have comprehensive health care plans.
Secondly, selling one's child in return for the medical expenses reduces
children to commodities, and women to manufacturing machines.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:20:36 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Logical "Proof" that Abortion is not always murder.

If you really want to try this argument out on him, send it to him at
70277.2502@CompuServe.com

...but don't get your hopes up.  He may decide he doesn't have time to read
thru yet -another- abortion argument (I'm sure he gets a lot of them).

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7648 talk.abortion:43068