HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:53:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.030602.952@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>Why is it that when someone says that they are pro-choice they staunchly
>support abortion and refuse to discuss alternatives??

>I think life is a good choice.

	So a z/e/f is _more_ alive than a grown person? Good grief.

>I have one solution, and I'll get nuclear flamed for it, but what is
>wrong with abstinence as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

	So one must never have sex unless one wants to produce
children?

	Baloney.

	I think people are entitled to their fun. I wonder if those
who advocate this "solution" only have sex when _they_ want to have
children.

	And what about someone who was raped?

>BTW--anyone notice that I've kept my postings on the level, without the
>sarcasm of the replies I get???

	Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo. What a crybaby.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 03:11:49 GMT

I forgot about that.

Simon

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5933 talk.abortion:38704
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Yet another Seriously cheap squabble about semantics
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:49:56 GMT
Organization: ILS

In article <1992Sep24.200037.11156@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com
(drieux, just drieux) writes:
> 
> bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
> ] 
> ] I will say it again, and as many times as I need to, so you understand
> ] my point:
> ] 
> ] 	MOST ``PRO-LIFERS'' DO NOT HOLD LIFE SACRED.
> 
> 
> James,
> 
> this is not quite Accurate.
> 
> We who are 'Pro_life' have always favored Superior Air Power
> and Massed Artillery Bombardments as a means of limiting
> casualties amongst the ranks.
> 

Who's
ranks?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: pcc@s1.gov (Philip C. Cox)
Subject: Re: Taxing the Rich (was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate)
Organization: llnl
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:18:05 GMT

leescogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Lee) writes:

>I can't help but wonder why no one has brought up the idea of a flat tax rate
>again during this election.  If we really want an equitable solution to the
>problem of the rich not paying their fair share, then this would be the 
>answer.

>I would complain much less if everyone were charge a flat 5-10% of their gross
>income with no deductions and no adjustments to that income.  It would also
>seem reasonable that this would increase the amount of income to the U.S.  I
>don't, unfortunately, have any figures on how much this would increase the
>income and would be interested in some economics wizards putting the pencil
>to this.

>Just my humble "two cents" worth.

I beleive this to be unequitable also. I beleive that a consumption tax is the only
equitable tax. What we need is to eliminate all income taxes, and establish an economic
pannel to determine the tax rate & budget cuts needed to get a reasonable federal budget.
Then determine what would be needed for basic subsistance, and exempt it from taxation. 
This would effectively give the poor (people only buying necessities) more buying power.
Then place the tax rate on ALL other items purchased. This would cause the people who
spend most of their money on non-essentials, people considered rich, to pay more of the
load. I feel that this idea would be very equitable and feesible. Think of all the goods
purchased with drug money that is never taxed. With a sales tax, no one will get out of
paying, and the payment would be fair. It would also encourage saving, which would help
us not to rely on foreign investors as much.

This is just an opinion, and a very rough outline at that, but give it some thought before 
you flame.


Phil
-- 
***********************************************************************
* Philip C. Cox          |  L.L.N.L.                                  *
* E-Mail: pcc@s1.gov     |  P.O. Box 808 L-542                        *
* VOICE: (415) 423-8316  |  Livermore, CA 94550                       *
*=====================================================================*
*                     Quote of the week :                             *
*                                                                     *
* "Many a man aims at nothing, and hits it with remarkable percision" *
*                                             - unknown               *
***********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: timm@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Timm Knoerzer)
Subject: Ultraconservatism in the US today
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:17:31 GMT

I believe that rush represents the ever-growing slant in this country leading 
us toward greater seperatism and isolationism.  The extreme right appears to be 
growing at an exponential rate, leading to a reprehensible stifling of 
creativity, freedom, ingenuity, and adaptation.  This Calvanistic mentality that
rush portrays will never contibute to positive progressive change.  

If we buy into his "philosophy", we will continue on our present course and 
continue to isolate one another in the process.  I hope that we will wake up 
and realize that he is part of the problem and not part of the solution.  It 
sincerely frightens me that people like this (rush, Pat Buchanan, Dan Quayle, 
etc.) are gaining widespread popularity at such a crucial juncture in our 
history.  It is high time that the more liberal front is taken seriously and 
that cooperation, compromising and communication are essential components for 
effective change.  These ideals are not represented by the conservative front 
and, thus, renders these individuals moot.

A concerned semi-liberal American

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5957 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5952 talk.politics.misc:48100 alt.flame:13066
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (9/19/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:41:48 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <R9qLRB15w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> > In article <1992Sep21.144353.4123@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@euterpe.
> > > You don't either agree with me.  I said abolish taxes.  Any and every
> > > form of revenue except for that which is voluntarily tendered.  Let a
> > > thousand points of light bloom!
> >
> > That makes you an anarchist.
>
> You admit, then, that nobody would want to pay for the services government
> offers if it wasn't compulsory to do so?
>

Federal Income Tax IS voluntary.


>
> mathew
> --
> De-evolution!  Self-execution!  No solution!	I'm a potato, and I'm sooooo hip!

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.p
From: bmcbean@nyx.cs.du.edu (Brian McBean)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 05:33:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.042310.4735@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa
edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.
>
>Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
>moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??
>
>Simon


That definitely proves the woman is aware, but what does it have
to do with the fetus being aware of anything?  Sunflowers move
too yknow.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: a Misogynist Boor?
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:42:35 GMT
 <5729@news.duke.edu> <1992Oct2.194728.10534@s1.gov>
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Oct2.194728.10534@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says:

>        Has RL _ever_ stated what he considers OK about _anything_
>that has _ever_ been labeled "feminism"? I'm not aware of him _ever_
>doing any such thing, so your apologia is irrelevant.

One time, a woman told Rush she considered herself a feminist, because she
favored equal rights, especially equal pay for equal work.  Rush said, well,
that's just -common sense-.

By her definition, however, Rush Limbaugh IS a feminist.  So that was a
pretty loose definition of the word.  But what you said, has happened.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6021 alt.activism.d:3374 alt.politics.elections:14434 alt.politics.bush:6925 alt.politics.clinton:7494 talk.politics.misc:48219
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
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: 27 Sep 92 20:10:41 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: HALF, Beaverton, OR

In article <1992Sep25.220609.5948@news.acns.nwu.edu>
lls@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Lori Smallwood) writes:
>I object to the term "Pro-Abortion" (thank you for including "Pro-Choice") 
>in a big way.

If there is nothing wrong with abortion, I wonder why so many Pro-Choice
get so angry (I'm not saying you do Lori) when they are called
"Pro-Abortion"?  Why is this distinction so important?  It seems to be more
than just a legitimate concern over getting the issues straight.  I can't
think of any other issue where people react this way.

I think the answer is obvious: most people do find something wrong with
abortion, but they aren't willing to impose that on others.

>I don't think *anyone* is "Pro-Abortion."

Well, you are wrong here.  Some people use as an argument for legal
abortions that there are too many people in the world.  My neighbor is this
way.  You could say that birth control would be better for this purpose,
but he and many like him are in fact *for* abortion as a way to reduce
population growth.  That is not to say that they would force women to have
them, but it is fair to say that they are for them.

>In a perfect world, there would be no need for this debate, because there
>would be no unwanted pregnancies.  (Wiping out unwanted pregnancies should,
>IMHO, be where most of the effort of both sides should lie ... but I stray 
>from the topic.)

I completely agree!
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: scarter@almaak.usc.edu (Steve Carter)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 3 Oct 1992 15:26:44 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: almaak.usc.edu

>>StarOwl writes:
>
>>Minorities, especially blacks and Hispanics, get more abortions than
>>the general population, according to statistics. Therefore, one can
>>...make the point that what exists is a government-condoned genocide
>>of minority infants, to prevent them from increasing their role and
>>power in society. I personally don't agree with this argument, but it
>>strangely makes sense! Hmmm...

Bayes' first rule of statistics: They are no substitute for common sense.

First, let's clarify that "according to statistics" statement.  True,
minorities get "more" abortions than whites.  However, they are also
more fertile (as a group).  Thus, the proportion of abortions to 
devliveries is approx. the same in both ethnic groups.  As a result,
more "minority" babies are born than "white" babies (remember, 95% of
100 is more than 95% of 10).

So, if abortion rights = genocide (albeit _gradual_ genocide), it is
us whiteys who are apparently being targeted!

-----------------------------------------------------------------        
Steve Carter                               SCARTER@ALMAAK.USC.EDU    
Dept of Psychology                                            
University of Southern California                       
Los Angeles, CA  90089-1061                                                    
-----------------------------------------------------------------             
"Most people would die sooner than think;in fact, they do so."                 
                                                 -Betrand Russell              
-----------------------------------------------------------------           

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6545 talk.abortion:40572
From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:08:33 GMT
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
# 	Conception is the first time that a human individual is
# created, an individual who will, if not killed, eventually grow
# into an adult human.  At no time prior to conception is this the
# case, and at no time after.

And?

What conclusions would you say can be derived solely from this
information?  Do you think most of us haven't already caught this
clue?

Simply put (once again), ...WHAT'S YER POINT?

-- 
J H Woodyatt (a.k.a. Dr. Strychnine)
Space Systems/Loral

Help keep Las Vegas clean.  Eat your kill.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6341 alt.rush-limbaugh:6342
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S TAX LIST(S)
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:54:18 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <1992Sep29.175444.20913@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:

|> I enjoyed Mickey Kantor's method of counting, which went something like:
|> 
|> 	44. Raised the tariff on nitrocellulose from Brazil
|> 	45. Raised the tariff on nitrocellulose from Argentina
|> 	46. Raised the tariff on nitrocellulose from Peru
|> 	47. Raised the tariff on nitrocellulose from Bolivia
|> 	etc.

	I would be surprised to see anything else, after looking at the 
GOP list which had:

	44) Raised the tax on beer (< 6%)
	45) Raised the tax on beer (> 6%)
	46) Raised the tax on wine
	47) raised the tax on hard liquor
	etc.

	I hope the new list gets the same amount of publicity as the old one 

-- 
                               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,talk.abortion
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Tom Selleck on Arsenio
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:55:03 GMT

In article <5822@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>Tom Selleck on Arsenio talked about the difference between liberals and
>conservatives (Selleck being one). I don't have the exact quote, but it
>went something like this:
>
>It's not that conservatives don't care. We do. We just have different
>answers than liberals do. It's a difference of the mind, not of the
>heart.

Here's one that I found amusing describing the difference between "us".

A Person is drowning 100 feet offshore...

  o  A Conservative would throw a 50 foot lifeline and tell the drowning
     person to swim to the line.

  o  A Liberal would thrown a 100 foot lifeline but then drop his end
     claiming he had some other good deed to do.

Mike Best
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:41:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article (alex) writes:

>sucessful then he is, and I'm sure it pisses him off.

I think you are projecting your emotions on him.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 03:19:16 GMT


Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Cathi Cook@dollar.crd.ge (1137)

>> In article <Bv20t2.JEx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu
>> (Bruce Varney) writes:
>> |>In <1992Sep21.170813.3183@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A
>> Lyman) writes:
>> |>
>> |>	A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
>> |>consent to sex.

>> But I am still unclear as to why you are making the gigantic leap from
>> this that the woman has consented to carry to term.

>He didn't.  What he said was that the choice for an abortion is immoral.

Then of what possible relevance is the "consent" argument?  Assuming,
of course, that Varney has empowered you to speak for him.

>> |>	No - it is an irresponsible and cowardly acy. Killing a defenseless
>> |>child for convenience's sake is deplorable.

>> Do please tell us Bruce, how inconvenient you found it to be when you
>> were pregnant.

>Today's word of the day is "Straw man".  Can everybody here say, "Straw
>man"?  Claiming that a person should not oppose murder because of their
>gender is silly.  If someone considers abortion murder, then they are
>morally bound to oppose it.

You have indeed set up a strawman here, and not a particularly
relevant one.  What I objected to was the use of the word 
"convenience".  I have never been diagnosed with prostate cancer,
hence, I would never take it upon myself to announce that prostate
cancer was merely "inconvenient".  If Varney has never been pregnant,
upon what could he possibly base his assertion that ending a 
pregnancy is done "for convenience's sake"?

Where did you get murder from my statement?  For that matter, where
did you get gender?  Heaven knows, I could post under the name
"John Smith" as easily as "Cathi Cook".

>> If you have never been pregnant, please do not insult the intelligence
>> of the women here who _have_ with your high-handed, arrogant dismissal
>> of the very real physical and emotional risks of every pregnancy.

>> |>			Bruce
>>                        
>>                           -rocker
>>                            maybe he just thinks it will get him lots
>>                            of email from women

>I prefer his moral stand to your sniping, empty attacks.

Do please, point out the substance in your "rebuttal".

>					Tom the non hacker

                  -rocker

ObSex: female
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 09:38:34 GMT


I think instead of "pro-choice" or pro-abortion" we should use a term
that is more accurate.  The term "pro-infanticide", or more simply,
"Pro-Murder" is the correct term that should be used, since after all,
abortion is the outright killing of children.

With that line of reasoning, if abortion is murder, then those doctors
that perform abortions are therefore murderers.  Going further, if abortion
is murder, and those that perform it are murderers, and if murder is a
capital crime, then technically they should face execution-right?? I mean,
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:18:38 GMT
Subject: i don't want no rush-tv
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh



I assume this thread is somewhere about...

is there anyone out there who has watched and actually likes the
rush TV show?  i saw it last night and was rather disappointed.
rush just doesn't come off well on the tube...he's much more
personable of the radio.

and his live audience is obnoxious-- they have no clue when to
laugh or snicker and they generally detract from the program.

anyone have any thoughts in this regard?

pjm.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Ted.Schafer@bbs.rn.com (Ted Schafer)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 16:57:00 EST
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Subject: clintons executive backers.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: Ted.Schafer@bbs.rn.com (Ted Schafer)
X-Posting-Software: UniBoard 1.10 S/N 145921

Executives backing Clinton
09/24/92
   Earlier this week, the campaign of Gov. Bill Clinton released a
list of more than 400 top executives who endorsed Clinton's
presidential bid, including the following New England business
leaders. A spokesman in the Bush campaign said a list of
businesspeople endorsing Bush may be released next month.
   Paul A. Allaire
   Chairman, chief executive
   Xerox Corp.
   Stamford, Conn.
Tim Barbarik
   President
   Sepracor
   Marlborough
   President
MDT Advisors Inc.
   Cambridge
   Joan Bok
   President   
 New England Energies
   Boston
 Louis W. Cabot
   Director emeritus, former chairman
   Cabot Corp.
   Boston
   Thomas D. Cabot
   Chairman emeritus
   Cabot Corp.
   Boston
Charles Cohen
   Chairman, chief executive
   Creative Biomolecules Inc.
   Hopkinton
   President
   Legatt McCall Properties
   Boston
John Cullinane
   President
 The Cullinane Group
   Boston
Phillipe de Villers
   Co-founder
   Computervision Corp.
   Bedford
Kenneth P. Fallon
   Chief executive
   American Surgical Technologies
   North Andover
John Freidenrich
   General partner
   Bay Partners
   Boston
   General partner
   Bessemer Securities
   WellesleyRobert N. Goldman     
 Chairman, chief executive
   AI Corp.
   Waltham
Steven Grossman
   President
   Massachusetts Envelope Co.
   Somerville
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6533 alt.activism.d:3541 alt.politics.elections:15158 alt.politics.bush:7722 alt.politics.clinton:8466 talk.politics.misc:49530 talk.abortion:40555
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
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: 5 Oct 92 17:38:28 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Mike Best) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|> >Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> >|> Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.
|> >|> 
|> >|> Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
|> >|> moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??
|> >|> 
|> >The pregnant woman can also feel it when a car hits her.  Does that
|> >contitute awareness for the car?
|> 
|> You should have put it this way.  The pregnant woman can also feel it 
|> when, while walking by the abortion clinic, she is hit in the face by
|> the remains of an unviable tissue mass.  Of course the u.t.m. does not
|> have awareness, especially since it was just killed.
|> 
When changing the intent of a discussion, leaving logic behind and
taking a leap of faith, leap as far as possible.  This may hold the
record for leaps.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6310 alt.activism.d:3452 alt.politics.elections:14814 alt.politics.bush:7369 alt.politics.clinton:8018 talk.politics.misc:48891 talk.abortion:39750