HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 10:56:54 GMT

William Crosmun (crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan4.183927.8268@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
: >>>
: >>> 1980 GNP 2732.0, defecit = 73.8, %GNP = .0270
: >>> 1985 GNP 4014.9, defecit = 212.3, %GNP = .0529
: >>> 1987 GNP 4536.7, defecit = 148.0, %GNP = .0327
: >>> 1988 GNP 4864.3, defecit = 155.1, %GNP = .0319
: >>> 1989 GNP 5200.8, defecit = 152.0, %GNP = .0292
: >>
: >>Mike, unless you plan on arguing that .0270 > .0292, you just disproved your
: >>own assertion.
: >>
: >>The deficit as a percentage of GNP was higher at the end of the 1980's than
: >>it was at the start of the 1980's.
: >>
: >
: >You are not giving mike his due credit. Let us not forget 1992, with its
: >399 billion dollar deficit. I do not have the figures on estimated GNP for
:  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: The deficit for fiscal year 1992, which ended in September, was 290 billion.
: Evidently you don't have any figures at all.
: 
: 
: >the year available, but I am sure that it does not reach the 14.8 trillion
: >dollars needed to mark an overall reduction in the deficit/GNP ratio in
: >the reagan/bush years
: >
: >Robert Johnston
: 

I should point out that it was repeating what Milton Friedman said on
Wall Street Week in an interview (defecit vs. GNP stuff).  I'll add now
that Friedman also said that Bush's economic policy is "reverse Reaganomics."
Reverse Reaganomics means uncontrolled spending, I guess.

In other news, Bush today submitted his 1993 budget proposal.  It is for
$1.5Trillion, which is exactly what we spent in 1992.  Not a balanced budget,
but if we stuck to that $1.5Trillion figure for a few years (less than 10),
we'd have a surplus budget.  Clinton has vowed to alter Bush's proposed budget,
so it is pretty meaningless.  And congress hasn't gotten their pork into it
yet :)


: 
: ===============================================================================
: William Crosmun
: crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com
: 
: ===============================================================================
: "No matter what the subject, there is some group which wants government
:  to regulate or  subsidize it, and  there are always those  in Congress
:  eager to take  over more power  and control.  But it  is impossible to
:  get something for  nothing.  The government  produces no goods, so  it
:  can hand out  favors to some  people only by taking  the earnings  and
:  property of others first."
: 
:                        From the Libertarian Party platform - 1992
: 
: ===============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12320 alt.rush-limbaugh:13705
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Timber Update theme
Date: 13 Jan 93 00:01:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In a perhaps meaningless post, Dr. Demento played Rush's Timber Update
theme as part of this week's Whimsical Will News feature - it's "Lumberjack"
by Jackyl (sp?). The musical chainsaw, by the way, is part of the song. 
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- MST3K's Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, 
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | after TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12200 alt.rush-limbaugh:13569
From: birmingh@fnalo.fnal.gov (Phillip J. Birmingham)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sex Education in Public Schools
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:07:01 -0600
Organization: Deep Thirteen
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

 In article <1993Jan6.162246.15359@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
 
>
>The following four books are used in many public school 
>districts.  The pamphlet is distributed in many school-based 
>birth control (family planning) clinics.

         I am still waiting for sources, Mr. Krueger. Please, for each of
    these books and pamphlets, name at least one public school that uses
    it. Thank you.

-- 
 Phillip J. Birmingham   birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov  
 I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough...
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:41:04 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <C0EFyp.DyG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) stupidly writes:
>
>  Let me ask you a question about the Constitution.  Who is commander-in-chief
>of the US Armed Forces?  The Prez, right?  So, how can Congress pass a law
>limiting the powers of armies distribution by the President?  Sounds like 
                        ^^^^^^

No, they sold ARMS to the Iranians, not ARMIES.   They then took the money
and gave it to the Contras,  they didn't give armies to the contras.
And although ARMIES use ARMS, they are not the same thing, and not
covered by the same laws.

Amazing how much difference two little letters can make. 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11969 talk.politics.misc:66762
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative? Hahaha....
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:42:49 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <Luc3wB5w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:

|In the days of the Civilrights bill Foofarah, when every other TV 
|appearance of Bush showed him opposing "quotas", "quotas", quotas", not 
|to manty people actually noted that the Bill in queation did have a line 
|that did indeed outlaw outright, quotas.
|  This did not prevent Bush from claiming to oppose this law claiming it 
|would establish quotas when indeed he knew full well it did not, and in 
|fact did just the opposite.  But it went over so well politically, Bush 
|couldn't help himself.  Your objection shows me a lot of people are still 
|being manipulated by fearmongering fools rather than looking at this 
|issue carefully and honestly.  This would have in no way given 
|supercitizen status to gays.  These sort of claims rank down there with 
|Phyllis Schlafly's claims that the ERA amendment would have mandated 
|unisex restrooms throughout Christian America. Fatous nonsense, but 
|people are so eager to believe the most outragous crap.
|  That nobody ever called Bush down over his lies about Quotas and the 
|Civil Rights Bill is a shame.  But I think is time to start pointing out 
|the similar lies involved with Colorado's Proposition 2.

When is a quota not a quota.
In the Backey (sp?) case a white guy sued to get into a medical school.
The supreme court ruled that while quotas were not permissable, guidelines
were.

Now under the new bill, a company can be sued into oblivion because they
do not meet some social engineers guidelines on racial equality.

Being sued because you haven't met your quota.
Being sued because you haven't met your guideline.

I don't see the difference.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
Subject: Re: Debate in a Vacuum!
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:36:41 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
NNTP-Posting-Host: zorba7.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1993Jan5.223929.1493@linus.mitre.org>, gary@maestro.mitre.org 
(Gary Bisaga) writes:
> In article <1i7kefINNbjs@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov 
> (Michael W. Rowland) writes:
> |> 1)  "The Way Things Ought to Be"  Rush Limbaugh (of course!)
> |> ...
> |> Blind assertions prove nothing, and "feelings" are fleeting, 
> |> at best.
> The majority of what I hear Limbaugh saying, unfortunately, seems
> to fit the "blind assertion" mold.  How many times have I heard
> him make various statements, citing "unnamed" sources; he always
> says (or implies) the sources are unnamed so they aren't persecuted
> by the liberal media or someother bugaboo organization.  This lets
> him get by with far more assertions that facts.
> 
YEP! You're right...that's why I like him as an entertainer
and not my guru or leader!  Most can read right thru him.

Mike

Mike Rowland (Contractor),  MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: gary@maestro.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga)
Subject: Re: Debate in a Vacuum!
Reply-To: gbisaga@mitre.org
Organization: none
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:39:29 GMT

In article <1i7kefINNbjs@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland) writes:
|> 1)  "The Way Things Ought to Be"  Rush Limbaugh (of course!)
|> ...
|> Blind assertions prove nothing, and "feelings" are fleeting, 
|> at best.
The majority of what I hear Limbaugh saying, unfortunately, seems
to fit the "blind assertion" mold.  How many times have I heard
him make various statements, citing "unnamed" sources; he always
says (or implies) the sources are unnamed so they aren't persecuted
by the liberal media or someother bugaboo organization.  This lets
him get by with far more assertions that facts.

|> I do not want to be misunderstood to be "preachy," but, at 
|> the same time, I want to point out that there *IS* a place 
|> for morals and character in society.  And in spite of what 
|> some will argue, there *ARE* certain human truths that have 
|> come down to our culture that are as old as recorded history 
|> and are from many, many cultures....
I totally agree.  I just wish Rush would stop there.

-- 
Gary Bisaga (gbisaga@mitre.org)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
From: maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com
Subject: Need advice on taping.
Organization: Gizmonics Institute Inc.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:04:43 GMT
X-Posted-From: vango.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

I'm planning to record Limbaugh's tv broadcast on inauguration day, but I need
some help: 

     Will Rush spontaneously combust or will his head explode?

tia.max
mmonningh@igc.apc.org
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 04:32:55 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1993Jan8.162613.8699@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
]
]BTW, are you suggesting, based on your comment, that discrimination
]against HIV-positive individuals, of any sexual orientation, should
]be *mandatory*?

Not unless they are applying for a job as a prostitute, a soldier or a blood
donor!

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - Clinton: "Read my lips: We will bring utopia, at no cost to you!" - -
From: mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Fri 1/8/93
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 13 Jan 1993 00:58:55 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
NNTP-Posting-Host: chezmoto.ai.mit.edu

In article <93011.233512KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, Kurt Ludwick
<KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> wrote:
> 
> In article <mwalker-110193164122@mwalker.npd.provo.novell.com>,
> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) says:
> 
> >What a show. With his marvelous discourse on science, Rush has proved, once
> >again, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. What I can't figure
> >out is how someone so big can have such a small amount of knowledge. I
> >suppose he'll just blame the public school system.
> 
> Oh, I don't know, I see no reason to have much confidence in scientists who
> continually make predictions which don't come close to coming true.

Obviously, you know little about scientists. Or science, for that matter.
Science is unique among disciplines, in that it advances itself by being
proved wrong.

By the way: if your confidence is lacking in scientists because of
erroneous predictions, what about your confidence in conservatives? or
liberals? or politicians? or radio commentators? or ....

----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Walker                                    mwalker@novell.com
All opinions expressed are of the author.
Novell, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this article.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: CM Braun
Summary: Where are liberals to defend CMB?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:13:35 GMT
Keywords: Liberals

   Several days ago I posted a flame on CMB and no liberals have stepped up
to defend Ms. Braun.  Could it be that they realized the mistake they made
in electing her?

   Does anyone have a reference on the elections stats for Ms. Braun?  I 
understand that she won 95% in Chicago and didn't win a single county, but
I don't want to go around quoting wrong numbers.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:09:03 GMT

crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    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.

>Innocent men need to be pardoned for the same reason that innocent men 
>have the right to remain silent, the right to be represented by an 
>attorney, the right to a trieal by a jury of their peers, etc., which is 
>that, when a citizen is in an adversary relationship with the state there 
>need to be limits on the state if the state is to remain a guarantor of 
>liberty and not become an enemy of it.

    Hmmm. I thought that's what "due process" was for - so that the 
innocent could have their day in court and have their innocence 
unequivocally established for all to see. At this point it seems to me 
that there are bound to be some lingering doubts, but if it was me then 
I would probably be willing to accept the suspicions rather than spend 
weeks in court. My reputation isn't all that shiny to start out with so 
a few extra blots on the old escutcheon would be barely noticeable.

>In this case, there were no limits on prosecutor Walsh.  He had unlimited 
>money, unlimited discretion, no oversight. He used his powers to extort 
>guilty pleas from minor officials who had neither the power, the 
>connections or the money to fight back. 

    It seems to me that these guys all had to have at least some 
"connections" with the Bush administration in order to get into their 
predicament in the first place. Walsh wasn't picking up people at random 
off the street.

>From those who did fight, he got nothing.  The problem with Walsh was his 
>lack of limits and lack of oversight; he had to be stopped. Bush couldn't 
>fire him, so he did the next best thing - make him irrelevant. Even that 
>hasn't stopped him though.

    Maybe he isn't quite as irrelevant as Bush thought.

>Clinton should now pardon Bush and call a halt to the whole farce.

    If George wants a pardon then he can still resign and have Dan do  
it for him. Somehow I doubt that will happen.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: So, anyone want to talk about Rush Limbaugh around here?
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 14:35:41 GMT

popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>> >...my killfile is huge.
>> 
>>     Mine is not, but this morning I really kind of regret it.
>> 
>>     I've paged through almost 200 articles and this is the first one to 
>> even make a token attempt to talk about Rush (Yeah, Michael!).

>Well Nathan, YOU start some interesting threads here that you find 
>worthy.

    Hey, I'm not saying that I didn't find the gays-in-the-military thread 
interesting about 700 articles ago, but at this point it seems to me that 
it's become the effective equivalent of the abortion topic; going around 
and around repeating the same old arguments and the same old rebuttals.

>  If you don't, don't bitch because there is nothing here ya don't like.

    I'll make a special note of listening to Rush today for a topic worthy 
of everyone's attention. I certainly wouldn't want to lower myself to the 
level of just whining all the time about newsgroup content. It just strikes 
me as odd that there have been about two thousand posts to alt.f.r-l during 
the period of time that Rush was on vacation. I would have thought that 
there wasn't that much to talk about...

>Pope Charles   SubGenius Pope Of Houston

--
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: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:18:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.174252.10792@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <16B4B8D3.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>
>So we now have, in Colorado, for the first time since slavery
>was abolished, a situation in which discrimination against
>a person, on grounds which are extraneous to the situation at hand,
>is now sanctioned by the state, in that the discriminatee is
>explicitly denied the equal protection of the law.
>

I certainly oppose 2, but your statement is too broad.  Jim Crow laws, 
women's suffrage, and (maybe) japanese internment are all situations which fit
you description.  You're in the right here. There is no need to exagerate
to prove your point.

-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: jimbo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Godfather of Soul)
Subject: Re: Protection for homosexuals *is* valid (Was "Colorado Amendment2 Query")
Organization: NewsRUs
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 06:40:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.104148.10697@hemlock.cray.com> davew@willow03.cray.com (Dave Wagner) writes:
>
>In article <1993Jan6.222856.27434@anasazi.com>, briand@anasazi.com (Brian Douglass) writes:
>> 
>> We need the ability to prohibit discrimination whatever the basis except in
>> the extraordinary situations, which the courts would eventually dilineate
>> as they have done with laws prohibiting A&B, murder, free-speech, etc.
>> 
>Would discrimination based on ability be permited? 

Sure, why not?  We can't discriminate against people for a job just
because they are unqualified....

>-- 
>Dave Wagner                               "Tongue-tied and twisted,
>davew@cray.com , uunet!cray!davew          just an earth-bound misfit, I"
>(612) 683-5393                                  -- Pink Floyd


James
-- 
James W. Brown		-  I dream of the day when conservatives learn   	-
			-  the difference between a sin and a crime and  	-
			-  liberals learn the difference between a       	-
			-  virtue and a requirement.      --William A. Niskanen	-
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:33:25 GMT

tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>In article <1icchdINNmki@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> gerberrl@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Richard L. Gerberding) writes:
>>dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>> 
>>> So what do you conservative types think of the Bush pardons?

>My opinion - there went the rule of law.  Now it is the rule of patriotism,
>and the rule of lie (to congress).

The humor in this is that some folks are now getting excited because
someone may have lied _to_ Congress instead of the other way around.
Go figure.

|===========================================================================|
|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        |
|===========================================================================|
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11574 alt.rush-limbaugh:13060
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:07:50 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan4.112422.2886@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


|In <C02Mws.CtK@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
|> 1980 GNP 2732.0, defecit = 73.8, %GNP = .0270
|> 1985 GNP 4014.9, defecit = 212.3, %GNP = .0529
|> 1987 GNP 4536.7, defecit = 148.0, %GNP = .0327
|> 1988 GNP 4864.3, defecit = 155.1, %GNP = .0319
|> 1989 GNP 5200.8, defecit = 152.0, %GNP = .0292

|Mike, unless you plan on arguing that .0270 > .0292, you just disproved your
|own assertion.

Anybody who claims that Reagan has any responsibility for the 1980 budget
is either a fool or a scoundral.
Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980 and sworn in Jan. 1981.
The first budget that Reagan had any influence on took effect Sept. 1981.
Due to time constraints this budget was actually a Carter/Reagan hybrid.
Carter started it, then Reagan modified it.  (there wasn't time to start
from scratch)
The first all Reagan budget didn't take effect until Sept. 1982.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com