HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gsh@iti.org (Greg Halbrook)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:00:58 GMT

alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:

>In article <crb2.711981623@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:

>>Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
>>never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice.

>	Right. I forgot about the liberal media, which quoted the words
>verbatim. It looks like times roman to me, but I suppose it could be slanted
>slightly. He said:

>	KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
>	and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
>	it?

>	QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
>	do have to deal with it, but obviously ----

>	KING: What would you do?

>	QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on 
>	whatever decision she made?

>	KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?

>	QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
>	decision.

>The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
>from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal 
>abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".

>	My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.

I'm sorry, but I don't see it quite that way.  If Quayles daughter did 
decide to become a murderer (not via abortion, but say she shot and killed
someone (premeditated and all that)), again I say his standing by her and 
giving her all the support he can is not hypocritical.  Even if abortion
were illegal and she had one, it wouldn't be hypocritical for him to support
his daughter in her times of duress.  It would be hypocritical if he tried
to exempt her from any punishment that her crime warranted.

***DISCLAIMER***  In no way do I contend or mean to imply that it is my opinion
                  that abortion is murder.



>-- 
>Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

>					Alex Crain
>					UMBC Academic Computing Services

( A side note to Alex:  I often disagree with your posts, even to the point of 
  ire.  But they do make me think.  Once or twice you've even opened my eyes 
  to the errors in my own thinking.  Thanks :)
--
						Greg.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: sjs@netcom.com (Stephen Schow)
Subject: The New World Order
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 18:49:08 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

What do any of you folks out there know about the New World Order and the
things that Bo Gritz has to say about it?


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Schow    | But you don't have to use the claw, if you
sjs@netcom.com | pick the pear with the big paw paw......
               | Have I given you a clue......?
               |                       - Baloo the Bear
------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3821 talk.abortion:28889
From: sgast+@pitt.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 25 Jul 92 06:51:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


In article <mykes.0a26@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
[text deleted]
#Women were never ever made criminals.  Doctors were held responsible.
#This is before Roe, since there has been ZERO legislation against
#abortion in the 20 years since.

You really should try listening or reading some news now and again.
(Unless, of course, you enjoy your current state of ignorance.)

There's been plenty of legislation against abortion in the nineteen
years since Roe.  At least one piece (the Utah law) initially 
made the woman eligible for the death penalty.

Susan



Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Carter & BCCI (was EQUITY and Barbara Jordon)
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:28:56 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.220259.25180@inel.gov> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>Iran-Contra has resulted in maybe two convictions of essentially political
>flunkies who lied to Congress.

My memory could be wrong here but I believe there has been only one
conviction and that was on misdemeanor charge that many believe could
have been successfully defended.  However, the defendent (Why can't I
remember his name when I need it?) would have bankrupted himself and his
family fighting the charges.  He chose to accept the misdemeanor plea
bargain.  One would think that the governmentt could have better spent
its time and money on other things.   Years and years, millions upon
millions -- one misdemeanor conviction.  And they are still at it.  It's
been an amazing saga.  Any wagers on whether Caspar gets convicted?

Tim


Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3766 alt.rush-limbaugh:3009
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:33:50 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <nate.374@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

->> I think both partys were responsible for creating the situation. Yes,
->>Reagan was partially responsable.  
->> Whats really sad is that the Fourth Estate is saying that all the S and L
->>bailout money is going to the greedy rich 80's type. So are they saying
->>that the middle class and poor people with savings under 100,000 dollars 
->>are greedy rich 80's types ? 

->    I think that what they're actually saying is not that the bail-out
->money is being paid directly to those greedy rich 80's types, but rather
->that it's being paid *because* of their mismanagement and fraud. And, at
->least in some small part, it's being paid because of an idea championed 
->by that nice old man, Ron Reagon.

 Please notice. I said Reagan was partially responsable.
 Why dont you admit that Carter and Congress were partially responsable ?
 Oh, your trying to make an election issue out of it.
  Isnt most of this money tied up in real estate that cant be leased right
  now ? Congress then sells the real estate during a low market and takes
  a big loss. Since Congress cant mismanage in your eyes, you dont complain.
  I try to complain about congress's mismanagement and total lack of know-
  ledge on how the Free Market works, all the time..

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: The media's love affair with Sen. Gore
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:06:59 GMT

KKRUEGER@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Kurt R. Krueger) writes:

> Will the love affair with Al Gore end?

YES!  Don't sweat it, fellow Right-wingers, I am from Tennessee and I
am here to tell you that when James Baker (or whoever..) get's a hold
of Gore's voting record in the Senate, his legislation, and little
things like the fact that ole Al is the one who first used the
name 'Willie Horton' back in '88 (just prior to the Mass. Primary) 
they will tear Al to shreds (boy, that's a long sentence..).

The mainstream media doesn't have to promote GHWB, we don't need
them or Arsenio...the Clinton campaign is something like $40 million
in the hole already (a taste of things to come??) and GHWB has some
$7 million that he MUST spend prior to his primary (the olympics...).

Just get some popcorn and sit back..let Clinton/Gore run there mouths,
try to position themselves as 'moderates' and then watch Mr. Gore 
get painted as a bigger pinko-radical-liberal than Dukakis  (who BTW
was 17 points ahead of Bush a year ago....).

Any of you pinko's wanna respond??

Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
From: v026ltr5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Monty)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Stop the Carnage NOW!
Date: 26 Jul 92 05:42:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <mykes.09s7@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>,
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes...
>What does it mean to TRY the case?  Rule or not to Rule?  Their
>argument used the Constitution, but certain interpretations of
>the Constitution were reading things into it that aren't there.
>Particularly, the right of the court to decide what is life.

What I meant is that there was no question about jurisdiction,
and that the actual SUBJECT (that is, does the 14th amendment
grant substantive rights) was an inappropriate justification
for the ruling.

>I say there are two clauses which conflict.  When they added the
>13th amendment, they eliminated the 3/5 rule quoted above.  Why
>did they not eliminate the direct tax prohibition clause when the
>16th was added?  Oversight?  However you look at it, it is rewriting.

I think logic clearly would dictate that you'd use the revision
rather than the old, albeit existing, language.

>I do not claim the court must uphold liberty whenever it finds it,
>but the court should not eliminate liberty without compelling state
>interest, either.  This WAS argued in the Roe decision.

This I cannot agree with. I've never bought this compelling
state interest stuff, and I doubt I ever will. If something
violates the constitution, it violates it. And if it doesn't,
then its ridiculous to pretend it does just because its the
politically correct thing to do.

>I also now must say that I find your statement about the Supreme
>Court's power to be incomplete.  The Court is supposed to rule on
>cases where a state is the defendant, which is the case with Roe.
>When the state is the defendant, the court IS ruling on a case that
>arises under the constitution.

I didn't mean it to be a complete survey of the powers of the
judicial branch. The argument was that the State had enacted
a law contrary to the Constitution. The Supreme Court then
proceeded to make up a convoluted justification as to why
the law violated the 14th amendment. Very strange.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
{                                            | Matthew P. Mason        }
{          are 'friends' electric?           | SUNY Buffalo Law School }
{                                            | v026ltr5@ubvms.bitnet   }
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.misc,rec.music.christian
From: harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling)
Subject: Re: Whose Truth? (was Re: Free speech and artistic style at the NEA)
Organization: PictureTel Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:49:20 GMT

In article <BD.92Jul20083818@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>
>in article <1992Jul14.170910.958@pictel.com> harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling)
>writes:
>
>>Rather than facing the fact that people's beliefs necessarily conflict,
>>and perhaps opening a dialogue on the subject for purposes of better
>>understanding and evaluation of one another's beliefs, people now
>>demand that others simply pat them on the back and act like they
>>believe it themselves, at least in this one particular case.  Failure
>>to do so, *especially* in the context of a clear disagreement of
>>beliefs, makes one "intolerant" and "closed-minded".
>
>This conflicts with my experience rather dramatically.  It is not the
>failure to "pat them on the back and act like they believe it themselves" that
>leads to charges of intolerance.  Intolerance is as much a matter of
>attitude as it is of action.  I rarely get offended when people disagree
>with me about moral or ethical issues - I get offended when they insist
>that they are "right" and I am "wrong" about issues which are largely
>subjective in nature.

That may be a central distinction: you consider moral and ethical
issues to be subjective in nature, while I contend that there must be
an objective moral basis in reality for those values, whatever that
basis may be.


>This is the point which you seem unwilling to address, but it's the
>core of my objection to what you have said.  I have no problem with
>religious folks saying that pre-marital sex is a sin, I have no problem
>with folks who say that homosexuality is a sin, I have no problem with
>folks who say that contraception is a sin.  I _do_ have a problem when
>those same folks try to legislate their beliefs, or try to tell me that 
>I am _wrong_ to believe what I believe.  

This illustrates my point quite well.  You are willing to accept my
(hypothetical) assertion that homosexuality is a sin, but you will not
accept the logical and necessary conclusion that comes with it: that
one would be in error to believe otherwise.  If X is wrong, then the
belief that "X is right" *must* be erroneous.

To be truly tolerant, one must tolerate not only the fact that another
believes certain premises, but also the fact that he draws the
necessary conclusions.  To expect that someone who holds certain
beliefs deny the necessary conclusions is unreasonable.  You don't have
to agree with either the premises or the conclusions, but you should be
willing to accept one who does.
____________________________________________________________________________
Daniel A. Harling                        (harling@pictel.com)
PictureTel Corp.             Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of
Peabody, MA  01960                 PictureTel, but they ought to be!
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3890 alt.rush-limbaugh:3148
From: crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: EQUITY and Barbara Jordon
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 14:14:52 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Jul19.001322.20298@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>>	   Of course he's in "panic mode".  He remembers, as I do, the
>>   extremes of the Carter administration -- 20% interest, 12% unemployment,
>>   and gas lines out to next week.	
>
>>The gas lines were due to an Arab embargo on oil, but largely exploited by
>>our own oil industry, who had tankers sitting in the harbors, with no
>>place to put the oil, because it was all being withheld from the market.
>
>	The gas lines were also two years before Carter took office, in 1974.
>Should we blame Carter for Watergate, too?
>-- 

If we're not going to blame Carter for the things that happened while he was
President, then we can't blame Bush for this recession.  BTW  Why on Earth
is Bush so unpopular?  I'm disappointed because everything I'm for he has
been against.  I voted for him to reduce the size of government, it has
exploded during his term.  I voted for him to cut government spending, it
has exploded during his term.  I voted for him to reduce the burden of
government regulation on business, it has exploded during his term.  I voted
for him to hold the line on taxes, he gave us the budget agreement of '91. I'm
understandably disenchanted, but these are all things that the Left favors.
Why are they so upset?  Environmentalists have gotten the Clean Air Act and
the Wetlands policy.  Civil libertarians have gotten the Civil Rights Act
and the Handicapped Rights Act.  We've gotten an increase in the minimum
wage, and extensions of jobless benefits.  What do liberals expect to get
from Clinton that they haven't gotten from Bush?


William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
Life is a mystery and it's an unsolvable one.  You simply live it through, and,
as you draw your last breath you say "What was that all about?"
                                                          - Marlon Brando
===============================================================================
"The computer industry is journalists in their 20s standing in awe of 
entrepreneurs in their 30s who are hiring salesmen in their 40s and 50s and 
paying them in the 60s and 70s to bring their marketing into the 80s."
                                      - public relations wizard Marty Winston
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: caw@gtech.com (Christopher A. White)
Subject: Re: School Prayer/Moment of Silence
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich, RI
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:45:17 GMT

In article <83997@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford) writes:
>I don't know what happened exactly, but at some point someone complained
>and we were forbidden to have them anymore.  I guess it's OK to pray in
>school, but not with other people, even if it's not during school hours.
>The problem seemed to be that it was on school property. 

That kind of suppression was overturned in a court ruling several years ago.
ALL extracurricular groups, including prayer groups, must be given equal
access to school facilities.

Topher
-- 
 Christopher A. White                    |"What's behind the words?
 caw@gtech.com                           | Images they know will please us.
 GTech Corporation, West Greenwich, RI   | I'll take what's real, bring up
 The opions expressed are mine alone     |   the lights." -- Queensryche
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Intellectually Challenging moments in Modern history
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:52:52 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <mykes.0aeu@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>  mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> In article <1992Jul27.101910.28681@hemlock.cray.com> mon@cray.com (Muriel Nelson
> > In article <mykes.0acg@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwar
> > >In article <1992Jul27.034354.27753@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, j
> > >> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> > >> ] Women were never ever made criminals.  Doctors were held responsible.
> > >> ] This is before Roe, since there has been ZERO legislation against
> > >> ] abortion in the 20 years since.
> > >> don't get out in the big world a whole lot now do you?
> > >> forget about a place called pennsylvania?
> > >
> > Mike, for somebody who just told drieux to 'shut the hell up',
> > just because he _proved you wrong_ in your initial, unqualified
> > assertion, you don't have much room to talk.
>
> He hasn't proved a thing.  What has he proved?

That you were wrong that "there has been ZERO legislation against abortion"
since Roe.

> That I remember a state called Pennsylvania?

That you're apparently unaware that Pennsylvania recently passed some
anti-abortion legislation (which was in the news for quite a while since
it was reviewed by the Supreme Court).

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: "Family Values" in Hollywood
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 19:05:01 GMT

In article <LARRY.92Jul23095928@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>
>I'm not sure we can easily sit down and equate performance of the vice
>presidency as some indicator of competency for the presidency. The two
>jobs are so entirely different most of the time. For example, I have a
>hard time remembering anything that Bush did as VP that would indicate his
>potential as president. (Of course, Bush's other extensive experience in
>government service, including the CIA is another matter.)

I agree and would only add that the complexities of governing in such a
dynamic environment as now confronts us and with a divided government
even assessing the performance of the president or congress is an
extremely difficult task.
>
>So, maybe I've been shooting from the hip on the Quayle issue. I'll try to
>keep an open mind about him as November approaches.
>

I can't imagine what more anyone could ask.  If we all adopted this
policy it might be make for a more meaningful discussion.  It certainly
would make it more enjoyable.

Tim


Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3746 alt.rush-limbaugh:2990
From: paul@pj.tmc.edu (Thorongil)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Mississippi State University ERC
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 16:01:08 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.150219.21396@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <crb2.711981623@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
>
>>Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
>>never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice.
>
>	Right. I forgot about the liberal media, which quoted the words
>verbatim. It looks like times roman to me, but I suppose it could be slanted
>slightly. He said:
>
>	KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
>	and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
>	it?
>
>	QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
>	do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
>
>	KING: What would you do?
>
>	QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on 
>	whatever decision she made?
>
>	KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
>
>	QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
>	decision.
>
>The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
>from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal 
>abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
>
>	My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.
>

No, he is not saying that if she chose to become a murderer that he'd
support her decision.  Instead he is saying that if my daughter chose to have 
an abortion ( become a muderer, thief, etc. - you substitute in what you
like ) that he'd support her when she faced the consequences.  It is like
a mother supporting her son who killed someone and is in jail.  There is
nothing wrong with that. He is not condoning that act ( of abortion, murder,
theft, ... ), but is condoning the support of the people after the act is
performed.

       ___   ____
       /__)   /          ^  __| ^ |\ /|  ______________________________
      / .  \_/ .        / \(__|/ \| V | (__   paul@erc.msstate.edu
    _______________________________________)
      Engineering Research Center For Computational Field Simulation
 

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3727 alt.rush-limbaugh:2963