HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:34:42 GMT
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

Keywords: 

In article <TcuDsB2w165w@monsoon.com> sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta) writes:
]john@msus1.msus.edu writes:
]
]> If I understand the voucher system correctly, people with children in the
]> public school system would be given a voucher which they would give to the
]> public school they decide to send their child to.  That school, in turn, woul
]> receive funding in proportion to the number of vouchers it collects.  It seem
]
]One of the major aspects of the proposed voucher system is that it
]would apply also to private and parochial schools. Thus, tax money
]would be used to support church-sponsored institutions (which are
]tax-exempt in the first place). This, to me, is the ulterior motive
]of the proposal, given Georgie's and Dano's new-found belief that
]the separation of state and Christian church is a constitutional
]aberration.

Did you know that we already have lots of federal tax money paying students
tuition in private and religious schools in the US? Do you favor ending
it? Please answer before reading the next...


Thanks you for your answer. Those schools are colleges and universities, and
the US has an excellent higher education system - very unlike our
primary and secondary education system.

College loans from the federal government do not discriminate between
private and public, and religious vs secular schools. Grants to researchers
don't either. If you support the current system of funding universities,
it is hypocritical for you to oppose the same system for primary and
secondary schools.
-- 
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
- Democracy is two wolves and a sheep using majority vote to decide what -
- to have for dinner. SUPPORT THE BILL OF RIGHTS - INCLUDING THE 2nd! -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:58:11 GMT

In article <Bw1Lst.7p7.2@cs.cmu.edu> garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>
>What's really absurd about Booth's "novel idea" is that he doesn't
>realize that O.R. members have, in fact, injured people already.
>He seems to think that violence against women entering health
>care facilities and those who would assist them is merely a
>fantasy of his.  He also ignores the fact that police officers
>have refused to arrest O.R. members in a few cases, and that
>some O.R. members are former or current law enforcement officers.
>
>Do you have any original ideas, Booth?
Actually, this was part of the larger, overall picture of a proposed
work of FICTION, not reality.  "Novel" refering to a book, not "original".
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: The Clinton Lexicon
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 18:17:39 GMT
Distribution: usa,na
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

Inspired by a cartoon in Reason Magazine.

What he says.                          What he means.

The rich must pay their fair share.    I'm going to raise taxes.
We must invest in America.             I'm going to raise taxes a lot.
I have a plan to revitalize America.   I'm going to raise taxes so high it'll 
					  make your ears bleed.
The Republicans are raising that       I haven't figured out a good story
   issue because they're desperate.       to tell yet.


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"Above all, as the keynote of all Democratic policy, in passing upon any
 question, let the controlling aim and ambition be to keep the road open for
 private enterprise and personal initiative."

             John W. Davis - Democratic candidate for President - 1924

===============================================================================
"I do not want to live under a philanthropy.  I do not want to be taken care
 of by the government.... We do not want a benevolent government.  We want a
 free and a just government."

             Woodrow Wilson  

===============================================================================
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7080 alt.activism.d:3752 alt.politics.elections:16076 alt.politics.bush:8604 alt.politics.clinton:9668 talk.politics.misc:50861 talk.abortion:41938
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
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: 8 Oct 92 18:45:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <t+vz_qc@rpi.edu> keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>->87% of americans have comprehensive health 
>->care plans. 
>
>can you support this statement?

Of course not.  I only heard it on Rush's show about 11 times in the 
last three weeks.  But of course Rush always lies, so I guess I must 
be lying.

Ted

-- 
"How dare you call us [people] `you people'!"
	-Benjamin Hooks

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6941 talk.abortion:41544
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:57:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct6.201239.4480@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>Also, a fertilized egg _may_ develop into an adult, NOT _will_.  There
>are many pitfalls along the way to adulthood, and one of the first of 
>those is the common failure to implant of many zygotes/embryos.
>
Bad argument again (like many from your side), since many children and 
teens likewise will not develop into adults.

Ted
 

-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
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: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:37:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.005152.18738@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><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??
>
>Trees move in the wind.  Bacon moves when it sizzles.  Fires moves as its
>fuel is consumed.
>
Get serious, please.  You know fully well what I was talking about.
Unless the truth makes you uncomfortable.....                :)


Simon
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7326 alt.activism.d:3851 alt.politics.elections:16590 alt.politics.bush:9026 alt.politics.clinton:10233 talk.politics.misc:51531 talk.abortion:42455
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:34:19 GMT

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>You're afraid of a science fiction story?? Just wait till you read the
>part about the riot police attacking the pro-abortion people with white-
>posphorus instead of teargas, and how anyone escaping the WP attack will
>face swift and certain execution.  The good news, lethal injection is
>outlawed, the bad news (for criminals) is that firing squads and the gas
>chamber using cholrine gas are the order of the day.  Executions will be
>televised, in order to make an example of the criminals.  But then, it's
>only a story....                                     for now :)

Damn straight.  Gonna save lives even if ya have to massacre a bunch
of people to do it...

Simon, your chances of getting someone to actually publish this
juvenile wet dream for you are zero.  But if you enjoy writing it, go
right ahead.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:57:28 GMT

In article <TcuDsB2w165w@monsoon.com> sg@monsoon.com (Sunil Gupta) writes:
>john@msus1.msus.edu writes:
>
>> If I understand the voucher system correctly, people with children in the
>> public school system would be given a voucher which they would give to the
>> public school they decide to send their child to.  That school, in turn, woul
>> receive funding in proportion to the number of vouchers it collects.  It seem
>
>One of the major aspects of the proposed voucher system is that it
>would apply also to private and parochial schools. Thus, tax money
>would be used to support church-sponsored institutions (which are
>tax-exempt in the first place). This, to me, is the ulterior motive
>of the proposal, given Georgie's and Dano's new-found belief that
>the separation of state and Christian church is a constitutional
>aberration.

This is a quantum leap of logic.  First of all, the Government would not
be directing which particular denomination the money would (or would not)
go to, that would be up to the parents.  Therefore the official establishment
of a state religion is not possible because the state has no say as to
where the money goes.  Secondly, you have reemphasized a difference
between liberals and conservatives.  Liberals believe that "tax money"
does not belong to the people.  Thirdly, the empowerment of the individual
is what you fear. You are afraid that, given the choice, the people would
not necessarily flock to the public education system which would then 
detract from the power and influence liberals possess there.

The names you use for the Pres. and VP show up in so many liberal posts
that it is very apparent that liberals spew hate just as often as they
claim that conservatives do.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: The Limbaugh Poll
Keywords: A slight trend
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:03:26 GMT

checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) writes:

>Listening to Rush today, I noticed that he was taking a poll on who is lining
>up for who for the election.
>Well, the count was still under way but, his poll showed a 91% run for Bush, a
>4% + for Willy, and a 4% + for the Parrot.
>
>Amazing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

	What is amazing is that there really are dittoheads who will put more
stock in this poll then any of the media polls, and conclude that Bush will
win by a landslide.

	(This is really true - I know one of these people, honest)
-- 
                               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,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 07:19:06 GMT


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: Summary Thurs 10/15/92
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:03:50 GMT



In article <1biupfINNjra@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern
 Morrison) writes:
>
>
>     Today, Rush and his listeners, a bunch of brain-dead sad sacks who
>haven't read fifteen books in their lifetimes, will piss and moan about
>Bill Clinton, the man who, in less than three weeks, will be elected
>President of the United States.
>--

Are you sure about this?  I am a VERY educated person.  I have read SIXTEEN 
books:
"The way things ought to be"
"Atlas Shrugged"
The Vatican II Documents
"Mein Kampf"
The Holy Bible
"The Prince", by Machiavelli
"Confessions", by St. Augustine
"Das Kapital"
"Under Fire"
"The Wealth of Nations"
"Democracy in America"
"Inside the Third Reich"
"Huckleberry Finn"
"The Summa Theologica"
"God, Country, Notre Dame"
"The Anarchist's Cookbook"

;) ;) ;) ;) ;) (for the humor impaired)

No, actually, write me and we'll compare educations, okay??
Take it easy,
-- 
           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
             Win Twins!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion,misc.misc
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 22:29:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <1992Oct11.190115.23930@ncsu.edu>
dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
> In article <1992Oct11.172132.132292@watson.ibm.com>
> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>
> >In  <1071@bug.UUCP>  stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>
> >> I was responding to someone who said the Republican Party was a fringe
> >> group because of (or was it "on") their position on abortion.  I simply
> >> pointed out that the Democratic Party is a "fringe" group in exactly the
> >> same sense, and they are.
>
> > Nope - the Republican Party platform is anti-abortion, with *no*
> > exceptions for rape or incest.  This is an extremist, "fringe"
> > position.  The Democratic Party supports the Freedom of Choice Act
> > and Roe v. Wade, which allows the states to decide whether or not
> > they want to restrict third-trimester abortions.
>
> Roe v. Wade and the FOCA do not allow the states to prohibit third
> trimester abortions which are necessary for ``health'' reasons, where
> the term ``health'' includes the woman's emotional and psychological
> health.

This is true.  If it's required to save *either* her life *or* her sanity,
the abortion must be allowed.

> Thus, Roe v. Wade and the FOCA are essentially unrestricted
> abortion-on-demand throughout the term of pregnancy.

This is not true.  You can not compare Jane Doe (who was already in a
mental institution) with the average woman wanting an abortion.

Quoting from Roe v. Wade:
   On the basis of elements such as these, appellants and some *amici*
   argue that a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to
   terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for
   whatever reasons she alone chooses.  With this we do not agree.
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> The Democratic party's support for unrestricted abortion-on-demand

This is a lie.

> > In fact, even though it's ostensibly up to the states, the reality
> > of the situation is that there is a de facto *ban* on
> > third-trimester abortions in the U.S.  for other than serious health
> > reasons.  This is because there are only 3 doctors in the country
> > who perform third-tri abortions, and that's the only reason they'll
> > do it.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
  "A woman voting for a Republican is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders"
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:59:53 GMT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington

detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:

>>>     Is this the individual the American people should send to
>>>The White House?
>
>>ABSOLUTELY!!
>
>Explain why?

Well, for the main thing, your question was supported solely by the absurd
allegations and innuendo made by Bob Dornan on the floor of the House.
Dornan himself said, when questioned later about any proof he may have had,
admitted that he was merely speculating and had no proof at all. So, posing
such a question as yours is absurd by definition.

But let me explain myself better. George Bush has shown us what kind of
President he can be, his record is one of the worse of modern history. He
has nothing positive to campaign on so he follows up on the comments made
by Dornan and spurred on by comments from his own senior staffer Mary Matalin
and questions Clinton's real reason for travelling to Moscow. And he admits
to not having any proof on the matter. He even goes as far as questioning
Clinton's patriotism by participating in anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in
England. Since when does one give up one's rights when they leave the shores
of home?

On a different note, I feel that Clinton has the best plan for the future of
this country. After all, Bush has no plan! (And Perot doesn't count.)

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:03:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.174303.19618@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <ld3flkINN2i0@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>That is all pro-choice advocates are saying.  Thank you for joining.
>
>This is such crap.  Perhaps you feel this way, but the leaders of 
>NOW and NARAL certainly do not.  Please watch next time any state 
>tries to enact things like parental notification or waiting periods 
>which just might have the chance of reducing the numbers of abortions.

Hmmm, I don't know that NOW and NARAL are against parental choice
specifically because that would cut down on the number of abortions -
that's not the only reason possible why they would be against it.

My personal opinion is that if a daughter does not feel safe in telling
her parents about a pregnancy, then having the state force her to do so
is not going to do any good.  Perhaps she has valid reasons for fearing
her parents?

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: leescogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Lee)
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:19:50 GMT

In article <98654@bu.edu> tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:
>Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.
>Most people have trouble believing Clinton (indeed, it's the cover story 
>of this week's Time Magazine) and Dan kept hammering the issue.  "Do you really
>trust Clinton to be President?"  I think most would answer "no".  And he and
>the Admiral had Gore running away from his book on the environment (supposedly
>his strong point), making him look like an extremist.  yeah, he exaggerated
>with the facts, but so did Gore.  Gore looked so stiff.  How many times did
>you hear "Bill Clinton and I think ...." at the beginning of a sentence?
>
>This is NOT to say that Quayle is a good VP or that Bush is a good president.
>But reading the papers today, you have to believe that either 1) they watched
>a different debate, or 2) they are biased.  I mean, it wasn't even close.
>
>

I think YOU'RE the one who watched a different debate.  Make no mistake, I'm 
not a Clinton/Gore supporter...In fact I haven't made up my mind yet.  There
was no clear winner in the debate to my reckoning.  Gore DID look stiff, but
he articulated his positions well.  And he was speaking for the Clinton/Gore
ticket, so would have been remiss if he had not shown unity with his running
mate.

"Running away from his book on the environment?"  Actually Quayle made a
supreme blunder in trying to argue with Gore concerning the contents of his
own book.  Three different sources, two of which support the Republican
ticket, stated that the claim Quayle was making concerning the contents
on page 304 was in error.

Quayle, however, did come across much better in the debate than he did in
1988.  He represented his position well and was informed on the topics.  But,
he should have been more careful on some of his facts.

Stockdale was completely out his element and showed himself to be the stand
in choice that he was.  Stockdale is an honorable man, but should have been
better prepared for the debate.  He could not speak with any authority on
his own running mates platform, and seemed to lack knowledge of the material
being discussed.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 14:12:44 GMT

kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes: 
>> |> If you will remember back to the primaries, Rush was urging people to vote
>> |> for Buchanan in order to send George Bush a wake-up call.

>>      I remember back in the primaries, when Rush was taking heat all
>> over he place for not supporting Pat Buchannan. Rush has been a Bush fan
>> since the beginning.

>You're a little confused, here, Alex; it was PEROT supporters who were
>giving Rush flack about not being on their side. Rush REPEATEDLY urged
>voters to go with Buchannan. Not that he thought Pat could win; but Bush
>needed to LISTEN to Buchannan, and Bush had (and still has) his head in
>the sand. 

    That's right, Ken, Rush did repeatedly urge people to vote for Buchannan 
in the primaries, but Buchannan supporters *still* called to criticise Rush 
because the only reason he wanted people to support Pat was in order to send 
a message to George. Some Buchannan supporters were mad at Rush because he 
didn't consider Pat as a serious contender who could actually have gotten 
the nomination, and their phone calls reflected that anger. The backlash 
from Perot supporters was more vehement than the backlash from Buchannan 
people, but they *did* call and give Rush an earful more than once. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu