HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 15:59:44 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Term limits (was Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits)
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov20.123923.13783@fasttech.com> zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:
>In <1992Nov19.212555.5049@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>
>>One of the big concerns of a new rep is to simply figure out the 
>>bureaucracy.  So what term limits *will* accomplish is a creating a
>>continuous crop of new reps who have very little idea how the system
>>operates.  This will, in my opinion, place a great deal of power in the
>>hands of career bureaucrats that isn't there now.
>
>>What choice does a newbie rep have but to rely on the advice and experience
>>of the permanent staff?
>
>That's easy.
>
>The new congressman can always vote to get rid of as many career bureaucrats
>as possible. All he needs to do are two very simple things:
>
>	1) reduce congressional staff and micromanagement
>	2) reduce executive bureaucracy by eliminating entire agencies

So can the existing congresscritters, but they don't.  What makes you think
that term limits are going to cause this miraculous eye-opening to occur?
I think term limits would worsen this dependence on staff.

Your ideas are good, but I don't think term limits will bring them about.

>It's too bad that the American public wants MORE, MORE, MORE from their
>government, so the above can't possibly happen.

You won't find any argument from me on this.  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Stereotypical name calling...
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 17:50:38 GMT

I know this won't do any good, but I must sound off.  I'm tired of this crap.

Too many people are name calling and using old, tired stereotypes:

 * Liberal = Democrat = socialist/communist.
 * Conservative = Republican = Fascist/Fundamentalist.
 * Libertarian = Social Darwinist/Anarchist.

This is crazy.  People identify with a particular group because *overall*, all
things considered, that group *most closely* matches their beliefs.  In almost
no case is it true that their beliefs are EXACTLY matched by a particular
group and/or the official positions of a group.  If we insisted that a group
or political party had to match a person's beliefs 100%, then we'd have about
100 million political parties in this country.

Pat Buchanan and Bill Weld are both Republicans.  Tell me how much they agree
on social policy.

Pennsylvania governor Robert Casey and Ted Kennedy are both Democrats.  Tell
me how much they agree about abortion.

People who identify themselves as Libertarians bicker constantly among them-
selves.  There is the extremist anarchist fringe who bitterly oppose even a
slight modification of the party platform, and there is the more moderate
Libertarians who advocate less government, but not the near-zero government
of the anarchist group.  I've been to Libertarian Party functions--I know that
the battle over the wording and hard-core nature of the platform is a constant
source of disagreement.  Tell me that *they* agree on their platform.

People who engage in stereotyping based on party affiliation or basic ideology
are missing the boat.  I know people who are extreme liberals--bordering on
socialists--except that they are pro-life.  Yet to hear many of you speak out,
people like that don't exist.  If you are an X, then you are Y.  That just
doesn't wash, and it doesn't allow for the individuality that we as human
beings all have in common.

Tim Irvin
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 21 Nov 92 06:06:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <10002@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>It is only those people who propose
>>>PUBLIC POLICY based on religion-based morality who are in the wrong.
>>
>>Oh!  I see!  So people who argue that there should be a law against 
>>murder are in the wrong.  People who argue that there should be a 
>>law against thievery are in the wrong.  Can't see why it took me 
>>so long to understand.
>
>Do you really think that the only reason for a society to have laws
>against murder and theft are religion-based moralities?  

Please re-read your original post above.  You do not specify that you 
are talking only about public policy which is based "entirely" on 
religion.  You simply state "based on religion."  If you mean the 
former, as opposed to the latter, then we would probably agree.
>
>I would argue that there should be laws against murder and theft
>because without such laws we couldn't have a functioning society.
>I suspect that most of us here enjoy the benefits of living in a
>functioning society.  Therefore, if we want to continue to enjoy
>those benefits, we should want to have laws that allow us to do so.
>
>David

But on the other hand, what damage does voluntary school prayer do?  
Perhaps, it could be argued that the non-christian may feel self-conscious, 
but we do not seem to use that as a basis for restricting rights in 
general.  I could, for example, claim that homosexuals should not be 
allowed to share showers with heterosexuals because the heteros would 
feel self-conscious, but we all know that the supreme court nor the 
ACLU cares a lick about how heteros feel about these things.
A
Ted
b
-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
XXXDate: Fri, 20 Nov 92 23:54:02 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A732C8AA38060642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Distribution: usa
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:56:26 GMT

In article <1ej2epINNi7h@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> Adrienne Regard,
regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com writes:
>In article <1992Nov20.012434.20798@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> 
>gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis) writes:
>>In article <Ef2zRZq00WBLE4rVkJ@andrew.cmu.edu> Elizabeth Cornelia Green 
>><eg1o+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>>}Abstinence is the only good method of birth control.  It's obviously the
>>}only 100% certain method.  
>>}Hope I don't sound too old fashioned.  But I'm only nineteen and I've
>>}already been able to figure this out.  What's the matter with the rest
>>}of you?
>>Nothing is the matter with us.   Maybe the defect is in your figuring...
>
>I'm not sure whether to be saddened that there are so many people who make
>it to the age of 19 without being able to think straight.....
>							     or to be 
>relieved that at least these nonthinking folks aren't out there repro
>ducing, because so far they've bought the propaganda that 'sex is bad'.
>

Excuse me, when did she say that sex is bad? Are you possibly confused
because you think what you are doing is bad and therefore you read
into her post something that was obviously not there.

Killing children is bad. If you haven't caught onto that by now then I
doubt that you can understand any reasonable argument anyway.

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 06:51:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <1992Nov21.031837.16924@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>
>>Spike Lee is a racist on a level with Jesse Helms.
>
>You appear to have fallen prey to the poor representation of Lee in the
>press and have never seen him live. He is not a racist. And certainly not
>on the level with Helms. I should know. I live in NC. 

You are correct. Lee is not a racist on the same level with Helms. But
Malcolm X was. We can thank (?) Lee for not bringing that racist attitude
into the 90s with his film.

I once lived in North Carolina. Unless things have changed dramatically
since the early 80's (they may have), you'll be well prepared for Clinton.
You're already taxed to death.

						- greg

-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges)
Subject: Re: President Clinton                                
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:52:21 GMT

God, I love it.  Listen to you people whine.  Dig this: by a solid
majority, Big Bill is THE PREZ.  THE CHIEF.  THE ANCIENT OF DAYS.  EL
MAXIMO SUPREMO.  GREAT BULL WHOSE SEMEN GIVES LIFE TO THE UNIVERSE.

Although I've relocated to Waterbury Connecticut, I traveled 300 miles
back to New Jersey (did not get an absentee ballot) to cast my vote for
the winner, and I was moved by the long line of ordinary people waiting
to vote...all sorts of people, whose lives have not improved under
ReaganBush.

People who were disgusted by 12 years of


     *  Lies,

     *  Plant closings,

     *  The nomination of a political hack, Judge "who put the hair
        in my Coke can" Thomas, to the Supreme Court,

     *  More lies,

     *  Negative campaigning,

     *  Screen actors, timeservers, hacks, bozos and alkys in positions
        of public trust,

     *  Deindustrialization, deliberate destruction of infrastructure,
        and in the 90s, detechnologization (shipment of even high
        technology jobs including software engineering to low-wage
        countries)

     *  What Princeton University's Cornel West has called "racial
        logic": the deliberate setting of the races (and the sexes)
        upon each other on the streets, in public universities, and
        in divorce courts in a deliberate attempt to deflect anger
        away from the big guys

     *  Rush Limbaugh,

     *  Even more damn lies


This is cause of celebration indeed.  Now to the specific points in this
man's post:

In article <1992Nov5.164846.3977@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
>In article <Bx898r.5rD@xcluud.sccsi.com> Glynne Tolar, gtolar@xcluud.sccsi.com
>writes:
>>>Once you pay taxes, you're a teenyweeny bit closer to socialism!!!
>>>So, unless you're cheating with taxes, you're a flamin' commie!!!!!

Yet the new Catholic catechism defines tax evasion as sinful...

>
>I guess what really irritates me about the socialist faction is that
>they all agree that they want more from their government, but they 
>want the hard working folks like myself to pay for it. Lends credance
>to the slogan: "Vote Democratic: It's easier than working!"

Seems to me that sitting on one's butt posting to the network ain't
work.  I work hard, but the man who comes in and removes my trash late
at night (so that the office is not buried in its own garbage) probably
works harder.  And these close-to-mininum wage folks pay more taxes,
proportionally, than us petty bourgeouis: FICA is a major, and
regressive, tax imposed on their incomes.

AND THE SHIP, THE BLACK FREIGHTER...
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Words of Rush
Date: 15 Nov 1992 20:48:35 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1129@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>In article <1992Oct28.210510.22927@ils.nwu.edu>
>hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
><In article <1992Oct28.024022.2384@netcom.com>, jrs@netcom.com (John
><Switzer) writes:
><>Take a civics class sometime, bunky - remember the Constitution grants all 
><>humans/citizens certain inalienable rights. Whether the individual is

WRT government power over them....
As a private individual I can come and take (or do) anthing I wish and
not violate your rights WRT the constitution, so long as I do not
act under the colors of law.  You (or the state) then has the right
to procute me however they see fit tho.

>Non-sense.  Just because John didn't get all the semantics right, doesn't
>mean that ditto heads in general or Rush in particular don't understand it.
>..........
>Of course, what you mean is what other people said Rush meant.  Rush
>hasn't been part of this dialog.

And boy, what a time for my old soap box.....

"If Rush was interested in a true debate, instead of JUST making money
He'd take the time to come onto the internet and enter into a debate
instead of just calling 'us' all "Internet Nimbrods" or even go so
far as post using his real name instead of (recalling from memory
cuz I'm not sure where the log file is on this one) Eron Slobnivick
on the compu$erve forum."

I'd love to see Rush take time and get into some real debate 
instead of his show.  It would be a chance to prove (or disprove)
my idea that Rush can't debate.

(I'd even go thru the trouble of actually spellign thing wright and
loook for typos.  :-)  Don't want to waist my life reading net-news
do I?  :-)


-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Presidential Wives
Date: 24 Nov 92 02:07:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

In article <1992Nov20.152126.623@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <105120024@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy) writes:
>>	so i'm listening to the show yesterday (11/17) and 
>>	rush and a caller are harping on bill for letting
>>	his wife hillary in on all the planning meetings...
>>
>>	how soon we forget... what about nancy pulling ron's
>>	strings??!  and i'm sure bar had more than a passing
>>	interest in georgie's work...  at least clinton is
>>	honesy enough to come out and say his wife is involved.
>>	(even if he's not normally honest;-)
>>
>You lefties just don't see the contradiction, do you?  What did the 
>liberals in the media say when the possibility arose that nancy was 
>having influence on the prez?  Lefties from coast-to-coast were 
>outraged!  Now, since it is one of your own in the white house, it 
>is perfectly fine that she gets as involved as much as possible.
>Ted
>

Actually, I didn't mind that Nancy had Ron's ear-- I minded that she was
getting her counsel from an astrologist.

The thought that we negotiated over nukes etc, according to whichever
celestial arachnid might be touching some Roman goddess or mammal's
"cusp" is enough to give me shivers.

---
David Christensen
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:48:16 EST
From: <FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
 <1992Nov16.172925.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> <6996@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>
 <1992Nov19.011903.10806@pmafire.inel.gov>

In article <1992Nov19.011903.10806@pmafire.inel.gov>, cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale
Cook) says:
>
>In article <6996@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@maui.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh
>Rovero) writes:
>>More people voted FOR term limits in each of the 14 states which had
>>it on the ballot than voted for Bill Clinton.
>>
>>Hint:  It wasn't just conservatives who supported these measures.
>
>So?  How many of those people who voted for term limits also voted to
>return their current congresscritter to office?

A whole bunch of them.  I was amazed when looking at the election results.
I seem to remember a figure of about 90% of the incumbents were re-elected in
states which approved term limits.  From what I saw, many of the incumbents who
lost did so due to redistricting. I have to wonder what these people were
thinking.  In this election, where everyone was crying out for "change" they
keep most of the incumbents in office!  But, they want term limits, so they
can't do this next time.  Real issue-oriented voters, aren't they?

I read a quote that people will only get the government they deserve.  If you
continue to vote the same people into office, YOU DESERVE THEM!  If the people
who voted for term limits felt that the incumbent had so many unfair advantages
over the challenger, why didn't they take this into account when voting?  If
they thought that their incumbent was doing so well, then why did they feel the
need for protection from him (or the next one)?

The same people voted two different ways on the same issue.  No wonder they
elected Clinton.

-Frank
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: the daily whine
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:43:00 GMT

The wonderful thing about listening to thEwIndBag is that you can tune in 
at any time, for any period of time and get *something* that will make you 
wonder if his elevator goes all the way to the top floor.

For example, Tuesday I caught just a snippet of his act wherein he repeated 
his oft-spoken belief that people should not cluster in groups to demand 
that rights (his words, mine would be 'equality of rights') be accorded 
those groups.  thEwIndBag's contention is that people should remain as 
individuals and succeed or fail through individual efforts.

Ahem.

This is exactly what one would expect from a white male, someone who has to 
have described to him what it's like to be discriminated against *as a 
group,* else he'd never have a clue.  The reason for folks to band together 
by gender, or by color, or by sexual orientation to ask for equality of 
rights is precisely because they are denied that equality simply on the 
basis of those things that bring them together as a group.

One would only expect a white male like thEwIndBag to encourge people not 
to band together to cure what they see as injustice against them.  Simply 
because he knows that, as individuals, they are as powerless as they ever 
were and that only by working together can they ever hope to right some of 
society's injustices toward them.


+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: nelsonwr@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Weaver Nelson)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:50:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.164217.24828@nas.nasa.gov> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>
>See the thing is Paul, unless I specifically invite you to be 
>involved in my sex life, it is none of your business.  So why 
>don't you wait for the invite before assuming you have any 
>interest at all in what goes on in my bedroom.
> 
I dont think that Paul has any desire to be involved in your sex    
life.  He was only being helpful since you apparently dont understand
human reproduction.  Pregnency is not somthing that occurs without
warning. It is brought on by certain behaviors which can be avoided 
if pregnency is not desiered.  See?  No one said that you cant do
whatever you want in your bedroom, just dont demand another choice
at another persons expence when you already had a choice.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Expansion of alt.fan.rush-limbaugh proposed
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:32:28 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <nate.845@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley) writes:
>>>->The larger issue, though, is why
>>>->anyone would actually devote the time and effort to summarizing over 15
>>>->hours of radio broadcasts every week.
>
>>  No, the larger issue is why people like you, who don't even like
>>  Rush, spend countless hours reading these newsgroups every week.
>
>    Au contraire, Don. IMHO the really really big issue is why people like 
>you and me who truly like Rush spend our own countless hours wading through 
>posts that attempt to present opposing viewpoints. I guess we're just open- 
>minded, eh?

BLASPHEMY!

ZZ

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu  
Subject: Re: Flaming Conservative (Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights)
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:36:00 GMT

In article <92321.32624.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes...

|>Yes, it certainly is terrible.  Those people tearing down the signs
|>certainly are not liberal, though.  They are apparently not open to ideas,
|>as being liberal entails.
| 
|You use the term "liberal" in the classical sense--the type of "liberal" which
|accepts all points of view and is open to new ideas--like the dictionaries do.
|The problem is that few "liberals" today are liberals in the classical sense.

	Exactly.  Basically, we just have a large number of left-wing and
right-wing fascists running around.

	I prefer to resurrect the fundamental meaning of the word "liberal"
rather than see it be dragged down with the factionists.

|With this kind of activity, I can see some need for campus control (yuck) of
|signs and posters--provided that the rules are equally applied to people of all
|ideologies.  If signs are somehow "registered" with adminstration (so as to
|identify "ownership" of the signs), then the university can forbid removal of
|the signs except by the "owner" group.

	As you suspect, though, that wouldn't work.  We (TAMU) don't have the 
policing power to maintain guard over fly posters.  And, I'd actually be
more concerned if TAMU DID have such power.


|>Are you people too stupid to realise this?
| 
|Not stupid; just blinded by ideology, I think.

	There are times when I feel that such men need to be at least
questioned as to possible stupidity.  Sometimes it makes them stop and
think for a second...

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     __
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__    \/

rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu