HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:58:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.192842.19836@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.183927.8268@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>>>>
>>>> 1980 GNP 2732.0, defecit = 73.8, %GNP = .0270
>>>> 1985 GNP 4014.9, defecit = 212.3, %GNP = .0529
>>>> 1987 GNP 4536.7, defecit = 148.0, %GNP = .0327
>>>> 1988 GNP 4864.3, defecit = 155.1, %GNP = .0319
>>>> 1989 GNP 5200.8, defecit = 152.0, %GNP = .0292
>>>
>>>Mike, unless you plan on arguing that .0270 > .0292, you just disproved your
>>>own assertion.
>>>
>>>The deficit as a percentage of GNP was higher at the end of the 1980's than
>>>it was at the start of the 1980's.
>>>
>>
>>You are not giving mike his due credit. Let us not forget 1992, with its
>>399 billion dollar deficit. I do not have the figures on estimated GNP for
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>The deficit for fiscal year 1992, which ended in September, was 290 billion.
>Evidently you don't have any figures at all.
>
>
>>the year available, but I am sure that it does not reach the 14.8 trillion
>>dollars needed to mark an overall reduction in the deficit/GNP ratio in
>>the reagan/bush years
>>
>>Robert Johnston
>
>

Sorry, but until you provide evidence to the contrary, I'll assume that
there is no liberal media plot to toy with my mind. The figure that has
been consistently quoted in all the news shows and newspapers I have 
seen is 399 billion. I'm not paranoid; others I wonder about.

Robert Johnston
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jpsb@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Organization: JJ Software
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:01:02 GMT

Just wanted to voice my support for an *unmoderated* conservative
news group. Seems the liberals are getting tired of us in 
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh 

Jim Shirreffs

I speak for myself and only myself
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:22:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.201858.12031@midway.uchicago.edu> dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith) writes:

>In article <1993Jan4.174252.10792@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>In article <16B4B8D3.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>
>>So we now have, in Colorado, for the first time since slavery
>>was abolished, a situation in which discrimination against
>>a person, on grounds which are extraneous to the situation at hand,
>>is now sanctioned by the state, in that the discriminatee is
>>explicitly denied the equal protection of the law.
>
>I certainly oppose 2, but your statement is too broad.  Jim Crow laws, 
>women's suffrage, and (maybe) japanese internment are all situations which fit
>you description.  You're in the right here. There is no need to exagerate
>to prove your point.

       Please, if you're going to delete everything I said, please delete 
the attribution line with my name in it.  I didn't write the paragraph below 
my name.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:00:29 CST


In article <2155@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> 
>  From 1983 to 1990 "The Seven Fat Years" we experienced the longest 
> peace time economic expansion and the longest general economic expan-
> sion since the Kennedy Tax Cuts in the 60's. What happened in 1990 to
> 1992 was due to the 1990 Budget compromise.

Let's see if I've got this straight.  The recession started in July 1990
because of a budget compromise that was not passed until the end of 
September 1990, right?
>                                               This compromise had nothing
> to do with Reagan and involved Bush "caving" into the Democrates on the
> hill. We Conservatives and Classical Liberals believe that Bush caved in
> to easily (ie - he lied about taxes and lost the election).
>  The socialist naysayers cry that "The Seven Fat Years" were caused by 
> deficit spending. That of course requires the listener to actually believe
> that deficit spending has the ability to spurn economic growth. This also
> requires belief in Keynes.
>  What we all need to worry about is the latest theory held by many leftward
> leaning economist.

Could you name some of these economists?

>                     This theory uses "The Seven Fat Years" as empirical proof
> that deficits dont matter. They think that the current government deficit 
> is meaningless and if they persuade President-Elect Clinton of this, we can
> all expect deficits to skyrocket through the roof.

Bush's own budget estimates show annual deficits >$300 Billion thru 1998.

>                                                      The Keynesians are back
> and using Reagans success as proof that their theories work. They are ignor-
> ing the fact that all the economic growth in the 80's was due to small co-
> mpanies having access to investment capital. The Keynes large centralist
> corporations all lost jobs...

"Keynes large centralist corporations"?  What are you talking about?

>  Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
>                "Just imagine what the deficit would be like if The Seven
>                 Fat Years never occurred. Remember when Social Security
>                 would not last till the next decade."

There was a massive increase in the Social Security tax to make it "solvent".

>                I hope my work schedule permits further reading here !
-- 
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!)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11909 alt.rush-limbaugh:13309
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Treat Bush Like A Loser
Summary: Bush must be cast-off like the loser he is
Keywords: Republican Party, Bush, Banish
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:50:06 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


  Here's a thought on which I should get flamed from both sides:

  Bush is a loser ( both figuritively and literally ).  The reason that he is
a literal loser is an issue for debate in the republican party.  My theory is
that he lost because he was not a strong ideological republican such as Reagan.
The liberals have tried to label the last twelve years as the Reagan/Bush 
years.  However, it should be made clear that the first 8 and last 4 years
were extremely different.  Bush sold out the ideas of the republican party and
it lost him the election!

  With that said, and the election lost, it is time for the republican party
to ask itself what's next for George Herbert Hoover Bush?  I think that it is
time to banish Bush like the bad leader he was, and stop coddling him as if
the election was one big liberal media conspiracy.  

 I have heard Rush make the point that Bush lost because of some trickery one
too many times!  Rush, as the conservative media influence, must stop treating
Bush with kid gloves and start pointing out all of Bush's follies.  He could
launch a successful attack for the Republican Party by showing where Bush 
betrayed conservative ideals and how it lead this country into an economic
downturn with skyrocketting debt.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Willie Fundie?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:06:13 GMT

I see that guv clinton said goodbye to his (Southern?) Baptist
congregation yesterday.  Whenever liberals begin to fat-mouth
conservatives, they often lump them all together as "Right-Wing
Fundamentalists." Since Baptists are about as fundamental as it gets,
does that mean that willie is one of the hated fundamentalists, or does
it mean that he only pretends to be one whenever there's a photo-op
involved?  If he is a "fundie," as I've seen them referred to here,
then it seems to me that he'd feel compelled to support his church's
positions.  If he belonged to a country club that excluded blacks or
jews, there would be a terrible outcry, but he belongs to an
organization that is strongly anti-abortion and against the practice of
homosexuality, and nobody has said a word.  Why haven't we heard a peep
from either of these groups regarding his support of an organization
that actively opposes them?

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Borgy Boy's squeals
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 02:01:07 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

Gee Borgy Boy, you sure hate Clinton don't ya.  Well he is going to be 
president in a few short days for 4 whole years at least.  Can ya dig it!
4 very lonnnnnnnnnnnng years.  And if he is half way competent, and there 
is no reason to suspect not, considering America's low expectations as 
shown by our tolerance of Reagan and Bush, he will win re-election.  
Easily.  So stay tuned Borgy Boy.  You will most likely have Slick Willy 
for 8 long years.  And if Gore tries to run, he'll probably be in for 8 
more years.  16 years of Clinton and Gore.  Isn't that nice?  That is a 
pretty good part of the best part of your life, these two will run the 
country.   And every day when you turn on the tube, or open the papers, 
there you will see the smiling face of Slick Willy.  Too bad you hate 'em 
sooo much.  Cause he's gonna be in your face for a good portion of your 
life.  And Ozone, his little buddy will be there too.  Isn't that nice 
also?  Learn to like it my friend, learn to love it.  Or it's gonna be a 
long, long 16 years for you my little friend.


Have you thought about immigrating?



Pope charles

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The American Spectator advertising is using sloppy logic
Keywords: NOT!
Date: 6 Jan 93 01:55:51 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1993Jan5.184730.6803@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Thoughtcrime Convict #12273-101) dimwittedly writes:
>

> * Why is it that the media let us hear how Anita Hill said she was
>not here to profit off the sexual harassment issue, but they aren't
>here to investigate how she's making $10,000 appearances around the
>country now, talking about it?

The following is a true story;    recently I found $23,000 in automated
teller machine deposit envelope slot.  Somebody had put the money
in the wrong place.   I called the cops, and they made sure the money
got to the right place.  The cop asked me why I turned the money in.
I told him because it was the only honest thing to do.  I didn't 
do it for a reward.  I didn't expect a reward.  So far, I haven't gotten
a reward, and while I'm disappointed, I'd still turn the money in again.

But if somebody offered me a reward tomorrow, or offered me money to 
talk about it, I would sure as hell take the chance!   And if I took 
the reward, it wouldn't mean I lied when I said I returned the money 
because it was the right thing to do.


The American Spectator seems to glory in fuzzy thinking.  This is a common
logical flaw known as "Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc", which means "it followed,
therefore it must be the cause".   
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12207 talk.politics.misc:67091
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative? Hahaha....
Date: 11 Jan 93 14:56:19 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <D2u7wB7w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:

|mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

|> When is a quota not a quota.
|> In the Backey (sp?) case a white guy sued to get into a medical school.
|> The supreme court ruled that while quotas were not permissable, guidelines
|> were.
|> 
|> Now under the new bill, a company can be sued into oblivion because they
|> do not meet some social engineers guidelines on racial equality.
|> 
|> Being sued because you haven't met your quota.
|> Being sued because you haven't met your guideline.
|> 
|> I don't see the difference.
|> -- 
|> Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itse
|> a government.
|> It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
|> Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com


|The Congress finally managed last year to pass the Civil Rights Bill over 
|the very strong objections of Bush and a lot of republicans and 
|conservatives.  This bill contains a clause that outlaws quotas.  QED
|Quotas are illegal.  End Of Arguement.
|What is a quaota?  Apply the duck test. If it looks like a quota, qaucks 
|like a quota, and walks like a quota, it is a quota.  And illegal.
|So what's yer problem?

|The congress. that bunch a liberals and godammned democrats took care of 
|the quota problem for once and for all.

Your faith is touching.
This bill did not outlaw quotas.  If it did, then every AA program in the
country would be on the scrap heap.  (sigh)
What the line in question did say was that nothing in this bill should
be construed as requiring a quota.

I have applied the duck test, which is why I oppose AA.
-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 5 Jan 93 13:12:32 CST


In article <1993Jan5.054514.13633@anasazi.com>, john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.093238.25382@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

> ]> The Colorado Law reduced the number of laws (by prohibiting certain forms
> ]> of special group protection laws). As such, it fits with the criteria
> ]> you give for conservatives. Hypocritical? Not at all!
> ]
> ]Would a Constitutional amendment prohibiting any laws to protect private 
> ]property also fit the criteria of "Conservative"?  After all, it would 
> ]reduce the number of laws (like laws agains theft, etc).
> No.
> ]
> ]How do the two amendments differ?
> Russ, I thought better of you. It is completely obvious how they differ.

Obvious?  Then you (or others) should have no trouble explaining how they differ.

-- 
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!)
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slick Willie and the Gas Tax That Won't Die.
Date: 5 Jan 93 16:32:50 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

>>>>> On 4 Jan 93 19:22:57 GMT, dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) said:
Dave> Have heard several reports that Prez-elect Slick Willie is
Dave> starting to talk about the 50-cent-per-gallon gas tax again,
Dave> now that the election's past.

I sure hope so. The 50c gasoline tax was one of Perot's better ideas, I
thought. 

Dave> Being used to $1.35/gal gas, and having a new car, I simply
Dave> find it amusing that all the folks who voted for Willie in
Dave> hopes of a big boost may be gnashing their teeth all the way
Dave> to the gas pump.

Sounds like a reasonable way to raise revenue. It might even encourage a
little conservation. (Hmm.. Conservatives ought to be for conservation,
right?)

Dave> "I won't raise taxes on the middle class" - Pres. Willie,
Dave> Nov. 1992

So who was this Pres. Willie guy? I thought George Bush was president in
1992. 

Dave> "You're lying, Willie, and you know it." - Me, Nov. 1992.

Wow! *You* said *that*? (Brilliant.)

Dave> One promise down, 4,276 to go.

(Clinton must have promised not to talk about a gasoline tax.)

And if you think that's bad, Dave, just wait until he actually gets 
in office!

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
I saw God. He rides a motorcycle. He's coming back soon, and He's real pissed.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: A scary thought
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 1993 14:28:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1993Jan2.013707.13234@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec31.062952.6046@news.columbia.edu> rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
|> >The thought that alt.fan.rush-limbaugh = alt.human-sexuality is truly
|> >a scary thought
|> >
|> 
|> 
|> So is a Democrat in the White House! :-)

So is Simon with USENET access.

Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Subject: Re: Abortion is poverty control, to some extent.
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy
Date: 9 Jan 93 08:36:21 PST

In article <unhealth.726544894@mcl> unhealth@mcl.ucsb.edu (Kristian Dunn) writes:
>To whom it may concern:
>	I consider myself a fiscally conservative and a 'better dead than red'
>	Republican Anglo-Danish Male. But one of my only bones of content with
>	Rush, is his inability to understand that abortion should be tolerated
>	since it kills many more children that would likely live in ghettos,
>	commit crime, and then become fourth generation welfare recipients!

This is such a stupid argument.  Where do you draw the line.  I can
drive through south central LA and in one hour see dozens of two and
three year olds who will mostly end up in gangs, commiting crimes,
receiving welfare, etc. So, why don't we just kill them now and save
society the burden?????  their parent don't want them and noone else
seems to. my point - either agree with this AND with what is said above
as a reason to justify abortion  -OR-  disagree with BOTH. otherwise, you
are INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT thus invalidating your whole argument.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:16:19 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

gsmith@polyhymnia.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

> >> Gays aren't calling for the use of the word 'fag' to be made illegal.
> 
> >Beg to differ - in many cases, that's exactly what one group or another
> >is looking for.

> Name the group, and give your evidence that this is what they want.

What I'm referring to is the crop of boneheaded "hate speech" ordinances
that have been enacted (or attempted) on the campuses of several
colleges. If you've been living in a barrel for the last six or eight
years, and haven't actually heard of these cases, let me know, and I'll
point you in the right direction for the research.



--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: I'm Famous!
Organization: Iconoclasts Eponymous
	<1icku3INN6r8@shelley.u.washington.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:28:19 GMT

In article <1icku3INN6r8@shelley.u.washington.edu> ryanm@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:

   In article <1993Jan5.002609.11019@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
   >In article <12335423@u.washington.edu> ryanm@u.washington.edu writes:
   >>In article <22580009@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
   >>>Jesus H. Christ!...
   >>
   >>Your choice of vocabulary is lousy!  You offend myself and every other
   >>Christian on this newsgroup.  I am not one to haul off and hit someone
   >>but this is pushing it!!!!  --Ryan
   >
   >Christ on a crutch!  Lighten up!  You are going to hit somebody because they
   >added an initial "H" to the name of somebody who supposedly said "turn 
   >the other cheek"?   It would seem that if you were a real devotee of your
   >sad little eastern god, you'd follow his words rather than use his name as
   >an excuse to indulge in activities he himself would disclaim.

   And here he goes again....  Using the Lords name in vain is offensive! 
   Like I said I don't go off beating the lights out of anyone, it was only a
   demonstration of my disgust for your choice of words.  Also what do you
   know about my God?  

   No need to continue this, I have now calmed down.  I was only pointing
   out that it is very offensive.  --Ryan

Jesus H. Christ on Quaaludes, kid -- did you ever stop and think that just
because it's offensive to you, it ain't necessarily so to anyone else?

--PLH, you know where your "n" key is, I take it?  Use it.

--

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc