HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: (no subject given)
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:39:26 GMT

art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>harry@hershele.alf.dec.com (Harry Katz) writes:
>   vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:

>          Here's the situation.  Rush is an ENTERTAINER first and
>          foremost.  He is not a journalist, reporter, or Geraldo Rivera.

>   If Rush is not a journalist or a reporter then he must be a "Geraldo
>   Rivera," that is, an entertainer posing as a reporter.

>The difference is that Rush says straight out that he's an entertainer.
>He makes is very clear that he is not a reporter.

    That's not what he was saying last week to that conservative lady 
caller who was complaining about his near-total focus on Clinton. In his 
belated pseudo-response to her criticisms he said that he had to focus on 
Clinton in the interests of "good reporting". Why is Rush concerned about 
engaging in "good reporting" if he's not a reporter?

>   Unfortunately, many of his supporters on this net do not know this fact
>   and it colors their perception of the man and his ideas.

>I don't see how they could miss it unless they are deaf.

    Actually I think that the reason some of them miss the point is that 
Rush himself seems to contribute to the state of confusion with stuff like 
the "good reporting" comment last week.

>  He says over
>and over again that he controls the whole show, including screening
>calls.

    The main thing that I can remember Rush saying over and over was his 
tirade last week while discussing liberals in which he repeated the phrase 
"Their ideas do not work" at least 5 times in rapid succession, almost as 
though he was reciting a mantra or as though he was trying to reconvince 
himself through repetition.

    Is entertainment the reason that Rush repeats his anti-liberal 
propaganda so much, or could it be that he's trying to make a point 
above and beyond the simple goal of making people laugh? Do you think 
that he really believes that liberal-bashing is funny no matter how 
often its repeated, or is he just willing to sacrifice a little humor 
for the purpose of bashing liberals?

>  He even goes so far as to say the purpose of taking calls is to
>make him look good.  He's quite open about this, and anybody who doubts
>it just plain isn't listening.

    Maybe they are simply listening more closely than you. None of my 
problems with Rush have arisen from anything besides his exact words. I 
think that perhaps you should join me in my scrutiny of those exact words 
before you assume that I haven't been listening. Inconsistancies are there 
if you bother to look for them.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70440 talk.politics.medicine:773 soc.culture.usa:10270 soc.culture.african.american:14473 sci.med:24618
From: cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Date: 28 Jan 93 00:15:10 GMT
Organization: University of California, Irvine

In article <90712@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>In article <2B6617C2.153@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>|In article <1993Jan27.044626.19510@tc.cornell.edu> bai@msiadmin.cit.cornell.edu (Dov Bai-MSI Visitor) writes:
>|>In article <1993Jan26.201607.4782@news.columbia.edu> jsb16@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Jennifer S Broekman) writes:
>
>|>>May you be faced with the choice between buying food and buying penicillin,
>|>>despite having worked since age 13.
>
>|>A theft is still a theft, no matter what the purpose is.
>
>|>Dov
>
>
>|Are you so frigging bitbrained that you are incapable of distinguishing
>|things on the basis of motive?  The legal system in this country does it
>|all the time.
>
>So you believe that the end justifies the means?

Another dualist who can't think of things in more than two terms. 

I never said that.  I said that motivations should be introduced when
making any judgement calls like this.  Certainly, someone who stole
soemthing to buy penicillin would get a lesser punishement than someone
who stole things for heroin.  If the judicial system in this country is
capable of seeing shades of grey, what's everyone else's problem?

Regards,
Janis C.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69944 alt.atheism:27059 talk.religion.misc:27639
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Madeleine Murray O'Hare
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:01:37 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <11208@vice.ICO.TEK.COM> bobbe@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Robert Beauchaine) writes:

> I wondered at the incredible amount of turmoil one person seemed to
> create.  Then I got to see a couple of his posts firsthand and some
> wonderful archived stuff, and realized that Ted is, in Romulan terms,
> a complete waste of skin.

Much like what the upper-crust English (and even some not so upper-
crust) have to say about the frogs, eh?
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69152 alt.politics.clinton:20902 alt.president.clinton:1702
From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: "It's the economy, stupid!"
Date: 22 Jan 93 00:28:36 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Ohio State University, Department of Physics

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan21140236@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
> <In article <1993Jan21.144844.18829@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
> 
> <That's ok.  I wouldn't want you to worry about the nuclear-tipped ICBM's located
> <in the Ukrain, 
> 
> 	And Kazakhistan and the Russian Republic. 
> 	Ukraine has not yet signed STARTI, by the way.
> 
> 	But don't worry, be happy: Bill will no doubt charm
> 	them into signing.

George would have!

> 	
> <or the minor nit that most of the oxygen in the air that you are
> <breathing comes from South America, 
> 
> 	Uh, I don't think so. The Amazon rain forest is big,
> 	but the oceans are bigger; plankton and other such
> 	plants in the oceans far outmass any rain forest.
> 
> 	But don't worry, be happy: Bill will find us another
> 	source of oxygen.
> 

George would have!

> <or that the food you ate this morning came from all over the planet.
> 
> 	Doubtful. Most of it came from North America....of course,
> 	if NAFTA goes down the tubes, that Mexican produce may	
> 	dry up.
> 
> 	But don't worry, be happy: Bill will fix it.
> 

George fixed it!

> <Why worry about breathing, eating, or being incinerated?
> 
> 	With Bill in the White House, we have no problems
> 	anymore. 
> 
> 	My TV set told me so.

Is it me, or do these whining Republicans sound just like us liberals did
during 12 years of Reagenbush :D

-Garrett




Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:69893 alt.activism:21394 alt.conspiracy:14674
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Destruction of the U.S.
Date: 26 Jan 1993 14:41:20 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) says:

>  Do you have a reading comprehension problem?   Did I say
>  anything about adopting their system?    Are you on drugs
>  or do you always have problems with emotional stability?


          It was a completely spurious and irrelevant reference.
          *I* am irrelevant.  
          I retract my statement.  


               
>
>  I am merely pointing out an economic fact:  that privatization
>  refers to who *produces* goods and services, not who consumes
>  them.  The US has not done as much privatization as other
>  countries for precisely the reason already stated by others
>  in this thread: there was less to do to begin with -- only
>  the most miniscule part of our GDP (note what the letter "P"
>  in GDP stands for) was not already privatized.            
>
>
>---peter
>
>
>
>
>

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70007 misc.legal:23387
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:46:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: gauss.ATAYLOR.93Jan26094626
	<ATAYLOR.93Jan24155854@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<1jvv16INNb8v@shelley.u.washington.edu>
Distribution: usa
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1jvv16INNb8v@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
<ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<><  (One might say she was gored for violating tax laws, too, but the tax laws
<><  in question are held in about as much respect by the general public as the
<><  laws against speeding, so I doubt they had much to do with it.)
<>
<>	Sure, Smith, try running a business and not paying FICA
<>	taxes.
<>
<>	Tell us what happens....

<   What would happen would be what happens to the millions of other people who
<   ignore this: *NOTHING*.  

	That depends, now doesn't it?
	
	If the Immigration and Naturalization Service raids, say,
	a lettuce farm and finds illegal aliens, the INS has been
	known to notify the IRS and other taxing agencies.


	Can Smith explain why a New Mexico farmer who barely graduated
	from High School is expected to know and understand the
	1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Immigration Act, IRS law, FICA law,
	NM Tax law (not to mention OSHA and EPA regulations),
	but the chief lawyer for a major insurance company and
	her Yale law professor partner get away with "not
	understanding" the law because of "bad legal advice"?


	Could it be that these laws apply only to those who
	aren't rich, aren't Yuppies or "Friends of Bill"?


	If "nothing" happens, it only happens until such time 
	as the case comes to the attention of the Feds; sometimes
	when the employee files for unemployment, for example,
	certainly when the former employee files for Social
	Security benefits. Then back taxes are paid; under threat
	of a jail term, by the way.

<How many parents do you think pay FICA for their babysitters?

	I know of at least 3; therefore the set is nonzero.

	Is Smith aware of the difference between "babysitter"
	and "live-in nanny and driver"?


	HINT: "babysitters" generally don't work 40+ hours
	per week for one person.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves,talk.politics.medicine,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american,sci.med
From: res4w@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Robert E. Schmieg)
Subject: Re: Statement of President Clinton on Health Care Reform Task Force
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:31:52 GMT

zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com  writes:
> I took EMT training a short while ago, and the guy who taught
> it was an ex-paramedic. He told us that he tries to get everyone
> he teaches or knows to get a medic-alert bracelet with their 
> insurance information on it, because without it, you simply will
> not get treated until someone plunks down a card for you. He said
> that this is especially important for non-white people, who routinely
> die in the ER for lack of care because they don't assume that you
> can pay or have insurance.

Well, this is one of my major buttons that you've just pushed.
1) IF you or he can document that this has occurred, take the
documentation to a) the AMA (local or national); b) the state
prosecuting attorney; c) local newspapers and any other media
sources; d) state legislators; e) the hospital administration
(choose ALL of the above, plus any others you like).
	This sort of neglect and discrimination should be
openly investigated, exposed, and removed.  It has NO place in
clinical medicine in the US, or elsewhere for that matter.

2) At least in my experience, this has not happened in ERs
that I have seen, and is NOT a "routinely" common occurrence.

3) IF you or he DO NOT have any documentation that this has
occurred (and documentation is NOT "he said she said ..." or "
my cousin ...) then EITHER get the documentation in order and
pursue 1) above, OR SHUT UP.  You and he are either spreading
unfounded rumors, or else ignoring a changeable situation.	
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: NO! President Bill, 72% of Americans are NOT lawyers!
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 03:45:05 GMT

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

]In article <john.727989523@misty> John R. Moore, john@anasazi.com writes:
]> Clinton's "diversity" in his cabinet is a joke. 72% are lawyers,

]So what else is new.... Our political system has been over-run with
]lawyers and businessmen for years. These people have the time
]and motivation to involve themselves in government.
Exactly, wasn't this the administration of "change?"

]> and
]> all are yuppies.

]If "yuppies" are defined as anybody who has been successful
](upwardly-mobile), then you have a point.....a meaningless point.
]Do you really want people who are failures running the country?

The point is that his cabinet does NOT represent the makeup of
the country.

]>Almost all are Washington insiders.

]It is a known fact that Carter had trouble dealing with congress
]because of the lack of Washington insiders in his administration.
]Being a Washington insider does not necessarily mean that you're
]an evil bureaucrat. It could mean that you know more about how the
]system works. These type of people are a necessity.

Yes, they are, but not necessarily in top policy positions. Furthermore,
my point was that they do not represent america.

As an aside, I think we would be a lot better off if we could rid ourselves
of the Washington nomenclatura. The only reason we need these bozos
is because they have made the system so complex, and because they
have infiltrated government into every walk of life. 



]>Some "change"
]> and some "diversity.

]By your narrow definitions, we would have a cabinet of downwardly-
]mobile failures with no expertice or federal government experience.
]Sounds great----NOT!

Well, Dr. LaFave, once again you have imputed meaning where none
was given. Nowhere did the article state that losers should be
in the cabinet. The point was the hypocrisy of the cabinet
that "looks like america" appointed by the president of "change."

]" Snort!

]gazoontite.

Snarple

]Norman

]Dr. Norman J. LaFave
]Senior Engineer
]Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




]When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
]                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jennyg@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Well Paid in Name Only)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Not more on Gays in the Military
Date: 28 Jan 1993 08:05:40 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucs.umass.edu

In article <C1J14n.1J2@apollo.hp.com> goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring) writes:
>
>    The existing policy bans certain categories (homosexuals,
>    drug users, etc.) from being able to serve in the military,
>    but it says nothing about redheads.
>

Well, the drug user thang makes a certain amount of sense, since a heavy
day or night of drug usage might affect a person's ability to properly 
blow away the enemy.  Now while a seven-hour session of making
wicky-wicky may also impair ability, I don't see how doing it with
someone of the same gender should be more debilitating than doing
it with someone of *another* gender.  Or one's hand for that matter.

My point about Clinton not coming out with a statement about why
redheads shouldn't serve, was simply to point out the idiocy of
your complaint about him not saying why gays should serve.  They
should be able to serve, because they want to.  And if they want to
go and fight & kill & die for me, well, I, for one, got no problem
with that.

Why do you have a problem with it?  Afraid your boyfriend might
get called up?

Jenny
-- 
***************************************************************************
jennyg@titan.ucc.umass.edu is Jenny Gutbezahl @ Univ. of Mass, Amherst
****************************************************************************
"I'm not cheap, love.  Loud, but not cheap."  - Dil in The Crying Game
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Mike, Because You're such a guy...
Date: 22 Jan 93 20:51:38 GMT
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA

In article <1993Jan21.061502.24849@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com
(drieux, just drieux) writes:
>] I just want to STRESS UP FRONT and CLEARLY
>] that DRAWING a WEAPON indicates a WILLINGNESS
>] TO USE TERMINAL FORCE.
>] 
>] Just as short and more accurate to boot.
>
>The phraseology, is from the conceptual stream
>of 'commitments' - if you do "A" you have committed
>yourself to "B" - the sense of Crossing lines as
>it were. To Me "willingness" has such a Nephish
>approach to it.... "The Flesh is willing but
>the spirit is Weak." Drawing that Weapon has
>Committed the Person to a WHOLE NEW BALL GAME.
>{And Yes, Until the Trigger is Pulled, we can
>all Back Down.... But we are, at that point
>working in the TERMINAL FORCE DOCTRINES range.}

Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree, as far as the semantics
go here.  Certainly, everyone here agrees that the situation has
changed Big Time once a weapon is pulled.  And certainly, everyone
here would feel immense relief afterwards, if the situation concluded
with nobody being killed. 

>And Hence, as a PART of the Weapons Training,
>that I Personally Feel SHOULD be MANDATORY
>for posession of a Weapon capable of Lethality,
>there should be the section on TERMINAL FORCE DOCTRINES.
>{it helps folks know which is their Weapon and
>which is their GUN, Which is For FIGHTING,
>and which is FOR FUN.}

Certainly, everyone who owns/keeps a gun should know how to keep it
safely.  My feeling is that our schools should teach a bit of gun
safety but I fear that this would be opposed by many, with the same
vehemence (and irrationality, IMHO) as some would oppose sex education
and the discussion of birth control in school.  Another possibility
that I would positively like is if gun manufacturers would offer
financial incentives (rebates) to people with proof of attending a
gun safety class.  However, I am completely opposed to having the
government legislate this issue, as they'd be quite certain to
fuck it up.

>But who is Going to Argue about Existentialism
>in a fire Fight......

He who fights with a Zen mind could easily compose poetry in the
midst of a firefight.  I imagine there have probably been a handful
of such people, throughout history. :)

    don
******************************************************************************
* Don Baldwin "The fastest draw is when the sword never leaves the scabbard. *
* Software     The strongest way to block is never to provoke a blow.        *
*  Engineer    And the cleanest cut is the one withheld.                     *
*                                 from Dennis Schmidt's "Kensho"             *
* donb@tamri.com                                                             *
******************************************************************************
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:38:37 EST
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: "New right libertarians"


Well, Brett, I tried to follow-up, but it kept getting bounced.

Your poat claimed I was making an unsupported assertion.
I suppose I should take that as a
Compliment from the king of unsupported assertions.  Actually, Brett
my assertion re: Medicare benefits and taxes
is perfectly true, and can be verified simply by looking in
any copy of the Social Security Bulletin.  Lee and others have asked about
other components of "the cost of Medicare" which are not included in its
direct budget.  I've actually told them how large those numbers would have to
be to make Medicare "less effective" than the United Way's 25% (a number which
is doubtful, too, given the typical accounting tricks).

I'm quite willing to admit that if you count the Justice Cost, the IRS cost,
etc., as part of Medicare's costs, then they would be closer to UWay.  As I've
said, those numbers aren't readily available, so you are going to have to
pay me to get me to track them down.  Now what unsupported assertion did I
make? It is Lee and others who have claimed that private charity would be
effective enough to deal with the problems of poverty, the uninsured, etc.
It's their assertion to prove.  This thread started when someone, not even
me, believe it or not, questioned whether there was any documentation to
to support the claim that private charities are more efficient than public
programs.  Since then no one who claims charities could do the job has
posted any reliable number (in fact, Lee's the only one I remember
posting any numbers at all, and he didn't post any comparative numbers.)
to prove the effectiveness of private charity.


These words and thoughts are my own. * I am not bound to swear
**      **      **       **          * allegiance to the word of any
  **  **  **  **  **  **             * master. Where the storm carries
    **      **      **               * me, I put into port and make
D. Shea, PSU                         * myself at home.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
From: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris)
Subject: Re: THANK YOU, BILL!!! THANK YOU!!
Organization: Georgia State University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 22:39:23 GMT

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:


>In a previous article, matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu (J. Morgan Morris) says:

>>>     There's still time.  If I were you, I'd get that house on
>>>     the market TODAY!  And you should move assets out of 
>>>     country while it's still legal.
>>
>>Don't have a house. Right now I'm investing in my children's lives
>>to the point that all assets are gone. I hope to buy a house in the
>>near future, but I realize that my children are more important. *People*
>>are our greatest assets, and I hope that we now have a government that
>>realizes that fact.

>      In that case, I apology.  I feel sorry for you.  "Hoping" ain't 
>      going to do it.  You're right, your children are more important
>      Unfortunately, *you* are a standing target.

>      Good luck.

Apology accepted, but don't feel sorry for me. I'm working hard to keep
my family together, and to provide a good upbringing for my children. i 
just refuse to go into spasms over money, since it's truly a secondary
issue. My best reward occurred yesterday, when my daughter's pre-school
teacher said that "she's the closest thing to a gifted student that I've
ever seen in all my years in teaching." Makes a lot of things
seem irrelevant.

Go ahead, make me a target.  I double dare you! :) All I ask is that
you make sense when you post...

Later,
Morgan

-- 

John Morgan Morris
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Georgia State University
University Plaza
Atlanta, GA. 30303-3083

Internet: matjmm@gsusgi1.gsu.edu
Telephone: (404) 651-2253
FAX: (404) 651-2246

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton