HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Conservative? Hahaha....
Keywords: quota
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 20:24:10 GMT


>
>The Congress finally managed last year to pass the Civil Rights Bill over 
>the very strong objections of Bush and a lot of republicans and 
>conservatives.  This bill contains a clause that outlaws quotas.  QED
>Quotas are illegal.  End Of Arguement.
>What is a quaota?  Apply the duck test. If it looks like a quota, qaucks 
>like a quota, and walks like a quota, it is a quota.  And illegal.
>So what's yer problem?
>
>The congress. that bunch a liberals and godammned democrats took care of 
>the quota problem for once and for all.
>
>
>--
>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

An interesting "proof," to say the least that the bill is itself
not a quota bill. 

First, and correct me if I am wrong, but the reconstruction ammendments
to the constitution explicitly forbade the refusal of equal rights for
black and in fact all americans. Yet, that these rights were witheld
to one degree or another is inarguable.
Second, the 1964 Civil Rights Laws passed under the Johnson administration
guaranteed the rights of all americans once again, yet george wallace
gained millions of votes in the 1968 election.

The point is that just because a law precludes some objectionable
action is NO guarantee that the action will not be taken.
You see, the thrust of the so-called civil rights bills proposed by the
democrats shifts the burden of proof in re discrimination from the
accuser to the accused. (which raises certain legal and ethical
questions vis a vis the "until proven guilty" precedent in our
courts.) Thus, what defence can a business offer other than that
its staff are sufficiently representative of the overall
community? thus, quotas are implicitly dragged into the picture.

I would argue that your "qed" is a bit premature, mr. "pope."
in fact, that you have proved anything is in fact quite tenuous.

--
David Leung-tak
"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
"A day without sun is night."
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: WHY DOES RUSH MISPRONOUNCE NAMES?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:42:21 GMT

In article <ndasmith-080193124849@amac222.acns.nwu.edu> ndasmith@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Noah Smith) writes:
>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!

Because it amuses him.  Sometimes it amuses me, too. ("The REVVVVVrund
JACKsuhhhhhn")  Other times I find it annoying, at least after the
first dozen times I hear it.  (Cuomo and Reich)

Your mileage may vary.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12332 alt.rush-limbaugh:13712
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 4 Jan 93 09:32:38 CST


In article <1993Jan2.181304.20185@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> 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?
> 
> The Colorado Law reduced the number of laws (by prohibiting certain forms
> of special group protection laws). As such, it fits with the criteria
> you give for conservatives. Hypocritical? Not at all!

Would a Constitutional amendment prohibiting any laws to protect private 
property also fit the criteria of "Conservative"?  After all, it would 
reduce the number of laws (like laws agains theft, etc).

How do the two amendments differ?

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
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: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:06:57 GMT

dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu wrote:
: In article <C0FGtF.I7F@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: > Nathan Engle (nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu) wrote:
: > 
: > 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 :).  If Reagan is guilty, charge him
: > with a crime, or leave him alone.  Same is true for all the rest.  Quit trying
: > to stick bullshit petty crimes on these guys.  If lying to congress is all
: > they're guilty of, this whole investigation was a waste of time.
: 
: 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.


: > 
: > : > 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? The scandals I referred
: to have more to do with Iraqi bank loans and the cover-up of the investigation
: (Iraq-gate), the background check into Clinton's passport record (Tamposi-
: gate), etc.
: 

Oh boy.  Check into the guy's passport.  BIG CRIME.  You don't think opponents
of Clarence Thomas didn't check into much more of Thomas's records?  OK for
you and your friends to do, I'm sure.  Iraqi bank loans?  Bull.  Hot air.
More smokescreen to divert the attention away from House Bank and Post Office, 
scam, keating 5, male prostitution rings, wrongful death at chappequidick.

There SURE is a lot to investigate.  Why do you insist on such one-sided
investigations?

: -Scott
: 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: "One Nation, Indivisible" Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 12:35:07 GMT

In article <4JAN199309512969@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>In article <ghartzog.32cl@terapin.com>, ghartzog@terapin.com (Garrett Hartzog) writes...

>	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)"

It was also written by a socialist.
(Note: This of course doesn't mean I like socialists...I don't.)

--Brian
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Berserk Sex Maniacs (was  Re: Lifestyle Choices)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 01:53:58 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:

> Jimmy Swaggert?
> 
> 
> 
> 	       
> 
> 




Jimmy ain't here.  Can we take a message?



--
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
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: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:29:29 GMT

Richard L. Gerberding (gerberrl@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu) wrote:
: 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?  

I believe the special prosecutor should be sicked on congress to examine the
bank fraud (house bank) and post office scandals.  After 10 years pass, and
a few hundred people are charged with pergery, we can implement a better law.

A special investigator makes a LOT of sense to me.  Let the man INVESTIGATE
crimes and then give his information to the appropriate authorities for further
action.  An investigator is like a policeman, instead of a prosectutor, judge, 
jury, and executioner rolled into one package (prosecutor).

: --
: 
: \===================================================================\|||||
: |\  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.
From: cse0115@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:19:52 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <C0DzvE.6Iy@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>  Once again I think we need to look at the basics of CO Amend. 2.  This amend.
> is a direct result of several cities passing 'Gay Protection' laws.  So, what
> does the state do?  It passes a LAW to outlaw the other laws.  Does this sound
> strange to you?  As a conservative, I am for smaller government (fewer laws of
> more substance).  So why is it that the conservatives have enacted this new
> law?  It would have been smarter to attack the liberal cities to get rid of
> the first laws.  The CO2 approach is wrong for conservatives, and it sends the
> wrong message to radical liberals ( Queer Nations ).  The way to fight radical
> liberalism is not to adopt their tactics ( more laws ), but to go after their
> silly laws as they are.
>  I know that the cities are more liberal than the state, but there must be 
> other ways for the state to put pressure on the cities ( state funds ? ).
> 
> 
> 
	I like the idea of that law being passed.  I feel that Colorado has
made a very good point with this law: that the Constitution guarantees everyone
rights and there should not be laws giving certain individuals preferential 
treatment.  I do like a smaller government but I do not see how this law really
creates a problem of bigger government.  

	I think that this law sends a clear message to the liberals who support
gay rights legislation that the people will stand up against them.  Because of
this law a boycott has been called by the gays showing how silly they really
are.  I would go to Colorado just because they called the boycott and that
there shouldn't be to many gays there because of it.


> 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Debate in a Vacuum!
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:45:50 GMT

rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland) writes:
>Up front, to let you know my reference points, the three 
>books are:

>1)  "The Way Things Ought to Be"  Rush Limbaugh (of course!)

>2)  "Illiberal Education"  Dinesh D'Souza
>     (The politics of race and sex on campus)

>3)  "Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong"  William
>                                              Kilpatrick
>     (Moral illiteracy and the case for character education)

[snip]

>Please, PLEASE, consider reading these books and begin 
>analyzing their content.  I would hope that you who do not 
>agree with their premise will post the name of books that 
>have an alternate viewpoint.

    I'm not sure that this one truly reflects an alternate viewpoint, but 
I've been reading _The_Rise_of_the_West_ by William McNeil and I've found 
it to be extremely interesting. I have a feeling that Biblical literalists 
wouldn't be very happy with the way McNeil tries to place the Bible into 
historical perspective, but I believe he offers some excellent insights 
into how Western Civilization got where it is today.

--
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: A scary thought
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 03:15:22 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper) writes:

> In article <s06RwB8w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (Wi
> >sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
> >
> >> In article <1992Dec31.062952.6046@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columb
> >> >The thought that alt.fan.rush-limbaugh = alt.human-sexuality is truly
> >> >a scary thought
> >> >
> >> 
> >> 
> >> So is a Democrat in the White House! :-)
> >> 
> >> Simon
> >> 
> >
> >Not anywhere near as scary as Pat Robertson's vow to conrol the 
> >Repukelikan party by 1996.
> >
> >--
> >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
> 
> What do you mean, '96?  This year's (er, *last* year's) election 
> made it obvious that Pat Robertson and his loony ^H^H^H^H^Hfundamentalist
> friends already control the Republican party.
> 
> 

Just because they got to write large chunks of the official Republican 
Platform does not mean they run that party yet.  But they are going to 
try.  They do run a lot of local republican organizations on the local 
level.  It will be fun to watch the fur fly for the next few years.
Prepare to repell boarders you lil Republicans.  Have fun.

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
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton and the deficit
Date: 13 Jan 93 04:08:52 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <93012.48039.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>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...

Indeed, it has been!  Two people told me the same joke on a single day
before the election -- one with reference to the Dems, the other with
reference to the GOP!

Chris
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: parker@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 03:19:39 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>>                                    If someone supports 
>>>the criminalization of an immoral act, then why must they 
>>>support those who wish to commit that act?  Does my support 
>>>of rape laws imply that I must satisfy the desires of  
>>>potential rapists?  If not, then what's the difference
>>>between that and abortion? 

>>Hold on.  In the case of rape, the attacker is adding a burden to society
>>through hospital care and police investigation of a violent crime.  In the
>>case of abortion, a burden is *removed* from society.  (or an individual,
>>depending on whether you think society or the parents should be responsible)
>>It is not the one doing or having the abortion, it is the child that results
>>from *not* having the choice of abortion that we expect you to support.  Your
>>rape analogy does not hold.

>Ahh.. so removing burdens from society then allows me to ignore any moral
>or ethical considerations to the contrary?  I think bums are a burden
>on society, let's kill them all.  We'll cut them into little pieces 
>just like when we abort babies.  

I did not say that societal burdens justified abortion or any other killings.
Doug made an attempted analogy to rape and asked if he had an obligation, and
if not why it was different.  I answered him by explaining the difference.

>>>Doug Holtsinger

>>-Rob

>Edward Simmonds

-Rob
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: What is the 14th Amendment?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 08:02:11 PST


   I've seen too many people here who claim to understand the Constitution
also state that Colorado's Amendment 2 violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.  Well, it doesn't.
   Back in the Civil War era (Civil War?  There's an oxymoron), rights were
being systematically denied to blacks by state and local governments.  The
Bill of Rights guaranteed that the *federal* government (Congress, actually)
could not deny the protections of the Bill of Rights to anyone.  That still
left that ability to the state and local governments.  The 14th Amendment was
created primarily to keep the Bill of Rights binding at state and local levels
of government.  It did not--and still does not--apply to private entities. The
14th Amendment is *only* binding on state and local governments.  Read the text
of it again.  It does NOT address private discrimination at all.
   That doesn't mean that private discrimination is a good thing.  In fact, the
Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991 would be a redundant waste of time if the
14th Amendment covered private discrimination.  But in no way can it be said
that the Constitution provides protection against discrimination by non-
governmental entities.
   You can say that CO 2 violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (though I don't
think that sexual orientation is covered by it), but certainly not the 14th
Amendment.  If you re-read the Bill of Rights and the other amendments, you
will see that the Constitution was written to limit the powers of the *federal
government* only--with later amendments (such as the 14th) which also force
state and local *governments* into compliance.  There is nothing--repeat,
NOTHING--in the Bill of Rights or subsequent amendments about limiting the
powers of *private* businesses or *private* citizens.
   Perhaps allowing discrimination against gays is wrong, but it isn't a
Constitutional question.  It will take either a Constitutional amendment or a
law passed by Congress which is found to be constitutional to legally prevent
it.  Sorry, folks.  That's just the way it is.  Try to change it if you don't
like it.


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
For a good time, call 800-682-1776