HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:14:18 GMT

In article <1992Jul24.200706.8719@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <BrwoKC.C45@solbourne.com> kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>
>>I'd like to see a similar interchange with Mr. Clinton, asking him what he
>>would do if his daughter grew up and joined Operation Rescue.  If he said
>>that he hoped she wouldn't but would still love her if she did, does that
>>make him pro-life?
>
>	Mr. Clinton is not trying to make joining operation rescue an illegal
>act. A better example would be "How would X feel if their kid went off and
>joined a jamacan drug Cartel".

Are you sure that this is accurate, Mr. Crain?  I'm not sure what his
views on this are but many of his supporters are working to see to it
that Operation Rescue is, in fact, restrained from continuing their
tactics.  They have had mixed success but continue the battle.  Perhaps
Governor Clinton does not support these efforts but I suspect that he does.


>
>	The pro-family folks cheered when an 8 year old girl turned her drug
>using parents into the police - Ronald Reagan congradulated the girl
>personally

Some did but I'm sure others did not.  I know this to be true.  I
consider myself pro-family (I suspect many Clinton supporters are also)
and I was extremely upset.  I certainly did NOT cheer.

>as a good American citizen. I realize that Quayle and Reagan are not of the 
>same administration, but they seem to be preeching the same gospel, and that
>being the case, I would expect Quayle to use whatever means necessary to 
>prevent what he claims is a hidious crime, from occuring. His support for
>operation rescue suggests that he supports using force to prevent abortion 
>from happening, it wasn't clear that he would apply the same standard in his 
>daughters case.

Even Operation Rescue (with whom I personally have many disagreements
over tactics) does NOT use "whatever means necessary" to prevent the
hideous crime.  Extreme as they sometimes are it is not hard to think of
many other things that they could do that are even more extreme. 

Tim

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3765 alt.rush-limbaugh:3008
From: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The depth of Right wing BS
Date: 22 Jul 92 14:39:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Jul21.145543.23931@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>	What is going up, as a result of the latest poll, is that fear
>level among right wingers that Clinton will win. This won't effect the
>markets as much as it will put a halt to the right wing agenda that
>has been working its way through the country in recent years. 

What is also going up is fear among entrepeneurs (you know, those people 
who create jobs) that Clinton will win and impose his punitive economic plan
on the business(wo)men of America.  Did anyone besides me notice the fact that,
when Perot dropped out, stock prices shot up?  And that every time Clinton has
been announced as leading in the polls, prices have plummetted?


+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Cloud-gathering Zeus     |Think globally.          |
|                         |Act locally.             |
|zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |Eat my shorts totally.   |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Judgmentalism (was Re: Whose Truth?)
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 20:34:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Jul28.141031.28781@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>tony@microware.co.uk (Tony Mountifield) writes:
>>szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>>harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:
>>> 
>>> >While the rulings may change, the reality stays the same.  Jesus was
>>> >very clear that lust is as sinful as adultery, and both separate you
>>> >from God.  That is, ultimately, the definition of sin.  Making such a
>>> >distinction may do more harm than good.a
>>> 
>>> The sort of hair-splitting in this debate may be one of the main reasons
>>> for the decline of Christianity.  It completely misses the point of
>>> _why_ adultery is a sin,
>>
>>Which is? (IYHO :-)
>>
>>>                          and thus loses a powerful relevence to today's
>>> society.
>>
>>This sounds interesting. Could you please explain? (This is not flame-bait).
>
>  In effect, Christians are saying, "Trust us."  "Lust is as sinful as
>adultery."  "Why?  Because Jesus said so."
>
>  However, the effect of modern scientific inquiry has been to question
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>our societal preconceptions.

The problem with modern scientific inquiry is that too few people understand
how little science really tells us.  Science can only tell us about phenomena
that are both measurable and reproducible.  Anything that is not measurable or
reproducible is beyond the realm of science.  (Science, for instance, cannot
tell us whether Lust is moral or immoral.)  Also, we tend to forget that
scientists are not looking for Truth (capital T) but for descriptions of the
measurable world.  For instance, they perform an experiment and get a result
of 4.  They devise a theory that reality is 2+2.  The "truth" of 2+2 becomes
popularized; we incorporate it into our world view, into our laws, and public
organizations, and into our policy prescriptions.  Some years later another
graduate student performs another experiment and reports that 2+2 doesn't hold
up but 3+1 does.  This new "truth" then goes through the same cycle.  While
all the while the Truth is the integral of a cubic polynomial taken over the
range -1 to 1.  


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
===============================================================================
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: BIG NEWS - Perot is OUT!
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 18 Jul 92 13:39:28 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <BrLKnK.124@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
> >I stick to my predictions, made in a post 2-3 weeks ago, that Perot
> >will be 2nd in the voting.
>
> Could you please give a confidence rating with this prediction (e.g.,
> 10% sure, 90% sure)?
>

100% sure.

> >The 2nd bit of news is that scum of all scum, Clarence Thomas,
>
> Do you really think that this is accurate or necessary?  Let's try to
> elevate debate not debase it.  Please reconsider.  Thanks.
>

I like Thomas.  I tried to phrase it so a Left Winger would understand
it.  Sarcasm.  Now I see why Rush says not to try it at home :)

What I wrote is accurate.  The woman asked Thomas herself, from the
reports I heard.  And yesterday, Friday, the Court did rule that
the pills should NOT be returned to the woman - the government has
the right to control unproven drugs.

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

--
Author of Amiga GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle,
and Genesis 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.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Incompetent S&L deregulation
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 08:37:29 GMT

In article <nate.371@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>...I hope we would agree that 
>the deregulation of the S&L's was not one of Reagon's most successful
>policies?

Agreed. The problem was that Reagan took away the regulations without taking
away the insurance subsidies.  It was still possible for a wealthy
depositor to put $1 million in 10 different accounts, the S&Ls to turn 
it into $50 million in risky mortgages, and they whole deal to be backed 
100% by our tax dollars.  In the private market, an insurer provides _both_ 
insurance and oversight.  An incompetent insurer would soon be bankrupt, 
but the government has no incentive to keep the proper feedback loops in 
the face of political expediency.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Mitch Sako's posts
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 06:12:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.215628.20647@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:

Recently we were bombarded with a number of ineloquent posts by Mr.
Mitch Sako.  I don't mean to take things out of context but to save
space I will quote from several of his posts.  The point is not to
debate each but rather to present examples of his tone.

1. "Who scream their gibberish....... and all that other crap"

2. "Anti-choice viewpoints are duplicitous and deceitful"

3. "It fits conservative dogma to act this way, selfishness, everyman
for himself, get yours now, etc."

4. ".... the anti-choice movement is a bunch of B.S."

5. "If he were true to his word he would condemn and disown his
daughter."

6. "I don't see why they hide behind this pandering, limp excuse for a
weak attempt at silly symbolism regarding their stand being
anti-choice."

7. "That's where the lie comes in."

and finally 

8. "His non-thinking lackeys are quite a bunch.  I used to
go toe-to-toe with a few of them on RIME but they all withered away when
they realized that they had no leg to stand on.  I don't mind his
arrogance so much but I do object to his lack of tolerance for anyone
who disagrees with him."

Given the tone of these posts it is easy to see why Mr. Sako's adversaries on
RIME "withered away".  It was likely not from their inability to
understand him but rather HIS inability to understand them.  At some
point they gave up trying to converse with him.  Originally I was going
to respond point by point (I would have especially loved to discuss
number 3 above) but as post after post remainded obloquious I declined.  It was
especially disappointing and surprising to see the words "arrogance" and
"lack of tolerance" used to describe another given the tone and content
(or lack there of) of this series of posts.

Perhaps Mr. Sako was just having a bad day.  Time will tell.  If
thoughtful posts follow that was clearly the case and we can all look
forward to a good debate whenever we see his name in the header.
However, if more vituperation follows then intelligent discussion will
be an infrequent occurrence.  I hope the former is the case.

Not about to wither away but not about to waste my time,

Tim
From: yin@ucsee.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: alt.fan.rush and alt.rush, how to avoid the repetition
Date: 22 Jul 92 03:24:50 GMT
Reply-To: yin@ucsee.Berkeley.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California Society of Electrical Engineers (UCSEE)


I have grown tired of having to see almost every article appearing twice.  
Is there anything I can do?
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:29:29 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <4048@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
:	This sounded a lot like Bernard Shaw's question to Gov. Dukakis
:four years ago about if Kitty Dukakis (wife) were
:raped/assaulted/killed if Dukakis would agree to the death penalty for
:him. 
	Sorry. No antecedent. "Him" refers to the assailant.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.misc,rec.music.christian
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Whose Truth? (was Re: Free speech and artistic style at the NEA)
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:35:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

[I'm removing rec.music.christian & rec.arts.misc from followups]

sco@aero.org (Stacey C. O'Brien) writes:
>In article <nate.344@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>Yes. I have been denied rights because of my beliefs. When I say beliefs
>>>I am talking about my Christianity. I was not allowed to pray with my
>>>friends in school or even sit on the lawn at lunch with our Bibles opened.
>>
>>    Have you approached your local ACLU chapter?
> uh.. it was the ACLU that made those laws in the first place and I
>don't think they'd defend me under any circumstances. I'm the oppressor,
>remember?

You have the most bizarre concept of the ACLU I've run across.

First, the ACLU is not a lawmaking body; they don't make any laws.
They don't have the power to make laws.  What they do is bring legal
suits, such as the recent graduation prayer case (which was brought
on the behalf of a Jewish family, by the way).

Second, the ACLU has *defended* student's rights to pray and to
carry bibles as part of the free exercise clause of the first amendment.
Students do not lose their rights at the school door.

However, you seem to forever confuse:

1) a student praying
2) the school telling students to pray

The ACLU has, for the most part, fought (2); looking over the MN ACLU
newsletter, I see a number of cases involving (2), but none involving (1).

It seems your school illegally prevented you from exercising your
rights; you sometimes have to fight for them.  Unfortunately, your
prejudice against the ACLU has you painting them as the ones
responsible, when they actually would've helped you.
Remember, they filed a suit on Oliver North's behalf because of
the end-run around the 5th amendment (which they won, if I remember right).

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Judgmentalism (was Re: Whose Truth?)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:31:11 GMT

hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:

>  However, the effect of modern scientific inquiry has been to question
>our societal preconceptions.  We need tangible reasons to believe that
>certain actions are truly bad for us.  Christianity has failed to provide
>satisfactory reasons.  People ask, "Why is lust a sin?".  "I'm not hurting
>anyone as long as I don't act."  Christianity says, "Jesus said it was a
>sin."  People ask, "Why did Jesus say that?"  Christianity says. "His
>reasons are too wondrous for us to comprehend."  People walk away, shaking
>their heads and mumbling to themselves.

I have to disagree here. While I believe it is necessary to have some faith
to grasp the truth and significance of Christian morality, it is certainly
not beyond our reason to see that this moral code is actually quite practical,
that it is in our best interest to follow it.

Why is lust considered sinful? Of course, because Christ condemned it. But
why did he feel it necessary to condemn it you ask? We can simply appeal
to reason. If one is not discouraged from lust, then he will be view it
as acceptable behavior. Due to the nature of lust and sexual passion, if
it is not checked, then it will grow to consume an individuals every
thought - it is an addictive pleasure. One no longer experiences it every
now and then - it becomes a chronic condition. Why is this? Well, what is
lust? It is not in any way a true love for another, but rather a desire
for sexual contact, and only that. Surely, we should not think of others
as objects for sexual gratification, but we should respect others as we
ought to be respected, for we all have worth as human beings. Through this
depersonalization, it becomes easier and easier to justify lust. So, by
enjoying lust, one enjoys degrading another's worth and human dignity.
Surely, no reasonable person would wish to do this. 

>  The longer the fundamentalists cling to their ideas against mounting
>contradictory scientific evidence, the more people will reject *all*
>Christian ideas.  It may be throwing out the baby with the bath water,
>but it happens all the time.  Look at a courtroom.  If a witness is
>caught in a lie about one statement, his entire testimony is brought
>into question.  But a person who deals with questions honestly is held
>in much higher regard.

While I'm not a Fundamentalist, it is not up to the Christian to make
the non-Christian believe. Fundamentalists do not believe they are lying,
or trying to "trick" anybody. They simply announce the truth as they
see it. If those listening are too biased against them to hear the
truth, that is not the Christians' fault.

On a final note, I'd have to say that no amount of "scientific evidence"
could ever call into question the value of Christian morality.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 24 Jul 92 08:29:24 CDT


In article <gsh.711914703@hela.iti.org>, gsh@iti.org (Greg Halbrook) writes:
> alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> 
> >	I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
> >and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
> >wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
> >decsion that she made".
> 
> >	Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
> >Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
> 
> What would you expect him to say?  His supporting his daughter in any
> decision she made in this scenario sounds like an anti-family-value to you?

Hmmm...  If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
support that decision too?

> Try, for just a moment, to pretend that you are totally against abortion.
> Then pretend your daughter, whom you love very much decides to have one.
> Are you going to disown her because she made a decision you disagreed with?
> (I know that some people might)  

No, of course not.  Now think that all women (and men too) are God's children 
and you should love them as you love your own children.  Are you going to
disown (or love less) other women because they made a decision you disagree 
with?

>      I'm pro-choice myself, but I can see no hypocrisy in someone who is 
> pro-life standing by thier loved ones especially in a time of crisis, nor
> do I see any lessening of family values in this.

I don't criticise Dan for standing by his daughter.  I do flame him for 
trying to make criminals of other women that seek an abortion.

Dan should stand by *all* women, the same as he would stand by his daughter.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
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 17:38:05 GMT

>> 	So, whats happening? The BCCI investigation continues, but most of
>> the current investigation seems to be geared towards the money laundering
>> that went on in the mid 80s, after Carter left office. Can you actually cite
>> a reference that I can go look at, I'd love to see it.
>>
>>
>> 					Alex Crain
>> 					UMBC Academic Computing Services

Well I heard just today (ABC News) that indictments are expected within
a week or two and Clark Clifford is expected to be indicted.  The
information was sketchy so I don't know what the charges are likely to
be.  Perhaps tonight on PBS or in tomorrow's NY Times more details will
be available.

I hope all will keep in mind that he is innocent until proven guilty.
This goes for Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, and Consevatives.

It even applies to Dan Rostenkoski although personally I think it is
abysmal that a member of Congress has chosen to plead the Fifth
Amendment in response to a congressional investigation. Even if he
thinks that the charges are unfounded, I think that he owes it to his
constituents to respond fully.  I expect that he is so well entrenched
and as chairman of Ways and Means can provide enough economic benefits
to his district that he will still be reelected.

Tim
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh