HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:22:05 GMT

In article <BvAH8F.Fxz@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

|> >Zeroing the deficit does not get rid of the debt, it just stops the 
|> >debt from getting bigger.
|> 
|>    This isn't true.  Part of the budget is payments on current debt,
|>    so a balanced budget would still be paying down debt, and over time 
|>    the national debt would be paid off.    A "balanced budget" simply
|>    means that your revenues match your disbursements.   That some of
|>    those disbursements are for exiting debt is immaterial.

	Correct, but misleading. The National Debt is typically in the 
form of 30 year treasury bonds, so the only piece of the debt being paid
off is the part that is 30 years old, or the part that was sold on shorter
terms. Since most (3/4) of the debt is not 12 years old, you still have
a $210B deficit this year, which more then offsets the small amount of
debt repayment. Net result: the debt is still growing.

	Your move.

-- 
                               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

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5958 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5953 talk.politics.misc:48101 alt.flame:13067
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (9/19/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 27 Sep 92 15:43:03 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <exuptr.665.717437467@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
> In article <mykes.0e0z@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep21.144353.4123@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@euterpe.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
> >> In article <mykes.0dwq@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike
> >> Schwartz) writes:
>
> >> >Get rid of the IRS altogether.  In case you missed it - the federal
> >> >budget for FY 1992 was $1.5 Trillion and revenues were $1.14 Trillion.
> >> >Of those revenues, $350 Billion were from income tax.  What does this
> >> >mean?  If the govt. could cut spending by 1/3, there would be no need
> >> >for income tax at all.  No need for donations, either.
> >>
> >> Urr...I realize that higher math functions such as addition and
> >> multiplication can be difficult for Rush Limbaugh fans to deal with.
> >> But you really ought to check your math here.
> >>
>
> >You are an idiot.
>
> No, you are the idiot.
>
> >Here's the math that even a Limbaugh fan can understand:
>
> >Spending = $1.5Trillion, minus 1/3 makes $1Trillion.
> >Revenues = $1.14 Trillion
>
> >$1.14 Trillion - $1 Trillion = $140Billion SURPLUS.
> >You ought to engage your brain.
>
> Sorry, foolish, you forgot to subtract $ 350 Billion for the "unneeded"
> income tax, putting you $ 210 Billion in the red.
>
> Maybe you should run for president.  Or congress.  Looks like you can do
> what they have been doing.
>

You forgot to subtract the $400 Billion we pay in debt interest.

>
>  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
>							 - Douglas Adams
>   - Patrick Taylor					   (Arthur Dent)
>     Ericsson Network Systems
>     exuptr@exu.ericsson.se			   "Don't let the .se fool you"
>     or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: 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.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: a Misogynist Boor?
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:40:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.194807.21040@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.160650.1477@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <mlbruce.717736922@husc8> mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:
>
>>Ditto. 
>
>	So you _agree_ with my assessment of Rush Limbaugh?
>
>	I think I must modify my comments slightly. It seems to me
>that Rush Limbaugh is the sort of misogynist who objects to seriously
>assertive women, though not to submissive or passive or servile or
>objectified ones.
>
>	Consider his objection to feminism that it makes opportunities
>for relatively unattractive women, something he makes into a great
>catastrophe. This is from someone who hardly looks like an Adonis.

Misogynist is an extreme term and is misapplied (IMO).  I could point out
that he has mentioned women that he has dated recently which would be a
strange thing for a misogynist to do.  I would say that that which you
paraphrased above is something he applied to a very small group of women
and not to the entire group of women who consider themselves feminists.
He was referring to the core group of leaders such as those at NOW etc.

Most modern women would identify with the women's movement to some degree
just like all people identify with environmentalism - we all like clean
water right?  The point he is making regards the core group of radicals
who are setting the direction and tone, not the well meaning American
women who want equal treatment. 

Of course he has a sense of humor too, asked how he felt about the women's
movement he said that he was in favor of it when he was walking behind a
woman (a joke!).  Hey, if you can't laugh at yourself then you're probably
a little uptight.  

>	I'm sure that there is one type of assertive woman that he
>would be more to make exception for: an assertive right-wing woman
>like Phyllis Schlafly. I think in his mind, an assertive woman is good
>when she asserts that women have no right to be assertive.

Hey, what about Jean Kirk-Patrick - no beauty queen but man has she 
received the equal and opposite in brains!  

Actually, the point he has made does have a grain of truth in it.
I get a creepy feeling when I see those feminist leaders myself ;)
Actually their attitude toward men are what really leads me to give
real thought to that which Rush has humorously asserted.


Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Interesting Clinton Supporters
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa,na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:41:36 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep28.035953.1444@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
]VietNam					Gulf War
]
]Started with defensive advisors		ditto
  ...what does this mean?
]Troops held back for political reasons	ditto
   ...detailed tactics dictated			tactics dictated by field
   commanders						commanders
]War drags on for YEARS			(watch for Gulf War II)
						war lasted <2 months. There
						will be no gulf war 2 with
					     	Iraq, although there might
						be punitive raids
				
]Americans leave country			ditto
  Americans left because enemy was		 Americans left after
  coming					 soundly defeating enemy
]20,000 dead				100 dead
  50,000 dead. So much for your		  total deaths less than same force
  credibility				  would have experienced during
					  training.
]Enemy undefeated			ditto
					  Enemy resoundingly defeated.
					  Enemy now forced to allow foreigners
					  to inspect and destroy warfighting
					  capability. Enemy forbidden to
					  fly aircraft over most of its 
					  territory.

]At least one major difference - the politicians backstabed our military 
]before the losses get big (at least in Gulf War I).

Not according to Schwartzkopf.

I think this guy's silly posting shows how far a revisionist can go
to reverse the facts of history.
-- 
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
 - - Support ALL ...erk  glugh   mmpph.... Memory fault (core dumped)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: barrett@terminus.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: Budget Debt/Deficit (Was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:41:01 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>In article <1992Sep28.162205.26063@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>In article <BvAH8F.Fxz@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>|> >Zeroing the deficit does not get rid of the debt, it just stops the 
>>|> >debt from getting bigger.
>>|>    This isn't true.  Part of the budget is payments on current debt,
>>|>    so a balanced budget would still be paying down debt, and over time 
>>|>    the national debt would be paid off.    A "balanced budget" simply
>>|>    means that your revenues match your disbursements.   That some of
>>|>    those disbursements are for exiting debt is immaterial.

Are you sure?  It seems to me that since paying off old debt does not
change net worth, it is not an expense and is not included in a
"balanced budget".  If it were, then we'd always have a balanced budget
since you'd have to include issuing of new debt as income.



------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- Why settle for anything less?--------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)|"If your so damned smart, why are
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |  you doing what you're doing, and I'm
                                        |  president of the U.S.?" - G.Bush
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: a Misogynist Boor?
Date: 29 Sep 92 06:11:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
+	Is Rush Limbaugh a misogynist boor? I think that the answer is
+yes, after inventing the term "feminazi" (I thought only liberals used
+"Nazi" as a dirty word) and claiming in one of his "undisputable
+truths" that feminism is just a movement to help unattractive women
+get ahead. I comment this because I'm not sure he would enjoy being
+called a fat redneck.

_The Way Things Ought to Be_ has this definition:
FEMINAZI: widely misunderstood by most to simply mean "feminist." Not
so, boobala. <<?>> A Feminazi is a feminist to whom the most important
thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur. <<At
time of press>> There are fewer than twenty-five known Feminazis in the
United States.

Oh, liberals do use "nazi" as a dirty word, but liberals don't get
criticized for it. Conservatives like Rush can't because he gets called
a misogynist boor.

>	I especially had in mind his comment after Madonna's Florida
>house was wrecked by Hurricane Andrew. It was that the hurricane was
>just another of the men in her life who "had her, and then who dumped
>her" (or something like that). This gleeful snickering that she had
>supposedly been abused by yet another man seems awfully misogynist to
>me.

I thought it was quite anti-Madonna myself.
-- 
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!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Taking life pretty seriously. NOT.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: HERE'S SLICK'S TAX LIST
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 15:27:30 GMT


In article <1992Sep24.145308.26871@meaddata.com>, 
johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) reported:

> The New York Times, September 23, 1992, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final
> SECTION: Section A; Page 27; Column 2; Editorial Desk
> HEADLINE: Yes, 128 Clinton Fees and Taxes. Count Them.
> BYLINE: By Fred Malek, general manager of the Bush-Quayle campaign.

[ * * * ]

>    The Bush-Quayle campaign assembled its list of 128 by taking
>    records of tax and fee increases out of a handbook printed by the
>    Arkansas Legislature.  No one seriously disputes the numbers anymore
>    -- even a Clinton aide recently put the actual total at 127.

"No one seriously disputes the numbers anymore."  Uh huh.  Don'cha
just love it when a politician (or one of his mouthpieces), faced with
an issue that's harmful to him, simply says "That's not an issue any
more."?

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
From: jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Date: 29 Sep 92 04:05:47 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

One thing that bother's me with abortion ...

    IF (and a big if) abortion was 'good' and EVERYONE had one,
    wouldn't it lead to DEATH?  The human species would die in
    one generation.

AND, no where in nature is abortion practiced.  (some eat their
young), BUT there is NO abortion.

-Lee.

-- 
Lee Jorgensen             Internet: jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------
                I hate .signature viruses ...
  So copy me into yours and tell the world you hate 'em too!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Tax #48 from NYT article
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:54:37 GMT

In article <5644@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>=eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) wrote:
>=> From enumeration of Bill Clinton's "taxes":
>=> "1987
>=> 48. Act 144 authorized the levying of an annual license fee of $500 for
>=> each abortion clinic."
>=> 
>=> Raises a few eyebrows, huh?
>=
>=Not especially.  Did you have a point here?
>
>Well I was hoping you would be able to think about what could be a
>financial/fiscal convienience of being pro-choice with respect to the
>government. Having the government somehow profit from the exploitation
>of women and "murder" of babies doesn't make me feel very comfortable.

The government profits from the sale of substances which can cause
cirrhosis (sp?) of the liver and lung cancer which can cause death in
real human beings.  Does this bother you?  Note also that taxation is a
tool which can be used to get less of something undesirable (that's the
ostensible raison d'etre for the tobacco and liquor taxes - they're sin
taxes, alledgedly the gov't has some sort of interest in stamping out
sin (that's why we also subsidise tobacco farmers, go figure)).  What
was that quote from a Supreme Court decision?  "The power to tax is the
power to destroy?"  Apply this reasoning to the income tax at your own
risk.

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

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Interesting Clinton Supporters
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:37:20 GMT
Distribution: usa,na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <BvAH1r.MwC.2@cs.cmu.edu> anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:

>
>Oh, Please.  The clearly stated primary objective of Desert Storm
>was to liberate Kuwait. 

How refreshing.  Someone who actually believes what we say.   Of course,
as far as we know,  we were probably seliling guns (and giving away bibles and 
chocolate cakes) to Iraq during the war.  The Reagan/Bush administration
seldom actually means what it says;

Reagan wrt to deficit  "If not now, when? If not us, who?"
Reagan - the west will embargo arms to Iran (so the US gets a clear 
		shot at the market)
Reagan - there is no covert aid being given to the Contras.
Bush - No new taxes
Bush - I am the educational President
Bush - I am the environmental president

Don't forget,  the allies defeated Germany in 1917,  left the government in
charge, imposed humiliating conditions on them, and were surprised when
they resurged.

Watch for Gulf War II, coming to a theatre of battle near you soon.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6487 alt.activism.d:3518 alt.politics.elections:15069 alt.politics.bush:7656 alt.politics.clinton:8380 talk.politics.misc:49381 talk.abortion:40423
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
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: 4 Oct 92 18:15:37 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>The evidence that I've seen suggests that the neocortex ("higher
>brain") of a newborn infant is not sufficiently developed to possess
>cognitive thought.  It is only until several months after birth
>that the infant's brain matures to a point where cognitive thought
>is possible.  Therefore, if you base your support for abortion rights
>on the fetus's inability to "think", then you must also condone
>infanticide.

Here comes DODie, eating shoeleather like there will be no more made.
The fact of whether the neo cortex does or does not support higher brain
functions a second after birth has nothing to do with whether a fetus
can be killed, and whether that philosophy condones infanticide. Take
a look at an infant. Take a look at a fetus. See the difference between
them (namely, the abdominal wall of the woman)? This is what pro-choicers
base their decisions on. The existance of the woman around the fetus,
who is being imposed on for her bodily functions to support a fetus.
An infant is self-supporting, and requires no more than any other person
in the world. They need food and water and shelter. They don't require
direct bodily functions of another unique human being for support.

I don't think anyone support abortion rights solely because they believe
a fetus is incapable of thought. I give pro-choicers much more credit
than that, in that they think of the woman involved, and justify to
themselves that the fetus is not a person on an equivalent level of
the woman so that the woman's rights to bodily autonomy shall be overidden
for the sake of the fetus'.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Maniacs Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 26 Sep 92 18:06:32 GMT
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
]tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
]>One maniac with an idea can kill millions;
]>Marx - Das Kapital   ->  Gulag, Teienmen Square, etc...
]>Hitler - Mein Kampf  ->  WWII, Holocaust, etc...
]>Rush ->   ????
] CLINTON -> ?????
]
]I've personally seen more to fear in Governor Clinton's pronouncements,
]especially those so ably mouthed by his minister of propaganda, George
]Stephanopoulos.  Comparison's to Hitler's staff and ministerial appointments
]invited.....

Let's have a little fun with this then:
Marx	Communist Manifesto	Revolutions in 1840s in Europe,
				socialist movements, Communism, etc.
so does that make
A.Smith	The Wealth of Nations	Capitalism, rise of American dominance,
				fall of Iron Curtain, global economy?

Sinclair The Jungle		Establishment of FDA

Hitler	Mein Kampf		Nazi movement, Holocaust, socialism,
				neo-Nazi conservative movements,
				Hogan's Heroes.

Rush	RL Show (radio/TV)
	The Way Things Ought to Be
				13+M migrate back to AM radio
				1996 campaign to run for President?
				Communications sect for next Rep Pres.
					NOT!!!

Gore	<title of book escapes me. Sorry>
				Revival of neo-eco (n-eco?) movement.
				World returns to simpler ways of life
				as all cars, planes, and trains are
				eliminated. We go back to covered wagons
				with lamps using whale blubber ... oops,
				can't do that! ... using uh, uh, some
				fuel as "headlights."

Clinton <his book on sale at B.Daltons>
				If elected, ???
				If not, book signings all over the
				country and speeches at
				$100K/appearance

Me	article posted in BioSystems
				Win Nobel Prize in physiology. I wish.

-- 
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!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	No social life & damn proud of it.
From: bill.berbenich@eabbs.uucp (Bill Berbenich) 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: EQUAL TIME
Date: 3 Oct 92 20:46:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Easy Access BBS - San Ramon CA - 510-829-7627
Reply-To: bill.berbenich@eabbs.uucp (Bill Berbenich) 

I think Rush is onto something with this "equal time" thing.

He _IS_ the equal time.
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberal Havens...
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:33:32 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:

# You know, it seems that there's this idea among conservatives that
# _evrything_ is some sort of liberal plot. 
# 
# First, it was the news media. Then, Hollywood. The obsessive dittoheads
# have managed to convince themselves that the publishing industry is
# somehow trying to hide Limbaugh's book from the public.
# 
# Now, the net is a liberal haven. 

The quintessential conservative is a white man in a white straight jacket,
running down a hallway, bouncing off the walls like a billiard ball, and
screaming the vile oaths that are volcanically erupting from the reptilian
portion of his brain. A short step behind him is the quintessential
liberal sporting a wide grin and holding a large hypodermic needle.

John
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 08:28:36 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

In  <1992Sep24.201833.26324@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>  krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
> In article <tv9n!t-.bskendig@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writ
>
> >And yes, arbitrary boundaries are bad, but sometimes they're
> >necessary.  I've at least tried to justify mine; you're just asserting
> >yours.  Could you explain your decision that personhood starts at
> >conception, like I've asked above?
>
> Certainly Brian, I look to the scientific experts and follow their
> opinion on this subject.  While it is by no means a consensus, a
> large majority of embryologists agree that human life begins at
> conception.

Note that Brian asked about *personhood*, not "human life".  Like you,
I look to the scientific experts, and neuroscientists state that
personhood is not possible before 28 weeks of fetal development.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion