HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S TAX LIST(S)
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:05:27 GMT
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

Now that we have completely abandoned all sense of reality on this question
of "who raised taxes how many times", lets use some other numbers that
are just as real as any others;

Bush - raised taxes 240 Million times
Clinton - raised taxes 7 Million times

Instead of counting tax measures, lets count tax payers!

(P.S.  These numbers are off the top of my head.  Are they the right number 
of taxpayers? If they are it's only by accident... but why bother with the
real numbers?  Bush/Potatoehead never does and look where it got them.)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 07:01:07 GMT


II think you understand at least part of what I've been trying to say.
Perhaps there are valid reason for abortion, although I'm against it.
But those reasons must be important, and other options should be examined
as well.

Simon

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 17:45:51 GMT
Organization: Starfleet Headquarters: San Francisco

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote (in article <1992Sep27.093834.5371@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>):
>I think instead of "pro-choice" or pro-abortion" we should use a term
>that is more accurate.  The term "pro-infanticide", or more simply,
>"Pro-Murder" is the correct term that should be used, since after all,
>abortion is the outright killing of children.

Okay, fine.  Then of course we'll have to give "pro-life" or
"forced-birth" a better name, too -- "pro-slavery" sounds good,
because they're ignoring the woman's rights.  Or perhaps "pro-abuse",
because it's obvious that any unwanted child who's born will be beaten.

Now that you're sufficiently incensed by the previous paragraph, don't
take it seriously.  However, do look at it as an example of how a
well-thought-out position for or against abortion can be grossly
misrepresented by making blatant assertions that aren't even
necessarily true.

     << Brian >>

-- 
_/_/_/       Brian Kendig  Macintosh Jedi           Live never to be ashamed
 _/_/   Starfleet Captain  Oracle Employee         if anything you do or say
  _/  Intrepid Adventurer  Saturn SL2 Owner    is published around the world
      bskendig@netcom.com  Wizard of Frobozz    -- even if what is published
    Princeton '92! BSE/CS  Writer/Actor/Singer                   is not true.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: Read my lifes - I voted for the new taxes.  Al Gore
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 05:43:36 GMT
Summary: Al only has to summarize.....

In article <23SEP199210104423@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov>, bdsuba@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (PANDAMAN) writes:
> In article <20566@plains.NoDak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes...
> >I was browsing the COngressional Quarterly tonight, and guess what?  That
> >tax that Gore is browbeating Bush over was voted for by Mr. Gore.  We seem
> >to have terribly short memories, maybe you Clinton-Clinton-Gore folks 
> >should go back and read about that 1990 budget package.  About how the
> >Democratic Congress, as usual, went right down to the wire and still hadn't
> >passed a budget.  How the government was going to go into it's now
> >yearly "we'll have to shut down the government" crisis, about the little
> >brainstorming session at Andrews that gave us an increase in some taxes,
> >along with spending cuts (that never happened), and how Bush finally gave
> >in to it, considering it was supposed to cut spending.  But as usual, we 
> >get the one sided Clinton version.
> 
> About 3 weeks ago Mr. Gore was on one of those Sunday Morning interview 
> shows (Meet the Press maybe?), and towards the end of the show he was 
> lambasting the President for signing the 1990 Budget Deal.  He went into 
> his usual blather about "no new taxes", broken promises, blah, blah, blah. 
> One of the panelists said, " Just one more question please, Senator". Gore 
> is all smiles.  Panelist asks, "Did you vote for that bill?"  Gore 
> responded, "uh..err...well...uhh yes, but, uhh... yes, uhhh, but I didn't 
> support it, what I mean is there were better bills, but this was just the 
> best one available at the time.  
> 
> 

Ha! I think Rush should take that sound track he has pieced together---
the one of Ed Koch's hemming and hawing (uuuhhh, duhh, mmm, uhh, ahhhh,
etc.)--- and just substitute Eco-pal Al doing one long...

           Uhhhhhhhhhhh ddduuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
           DOOIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

It'd be much more fitting and appropriate.......especially if Senator
Oze-hole put his finger in his cheek and crossed his eyes for added
effect...and maybe also hold up his book (upside down) at the same
time. 

                                          H.R. Holm

*comment my own, standard disclaimers
 replies to the newsgroup only, please*

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Subject: Re: Principles, principles, principles
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 08:04:36 GMT

In article <5642@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>Sorry, although everyone of the Clinton advocates agree that Clinton
>would be less prone to pulling the trigger, I think that is what will
>weaken this country when it comes to any future military confrontation.
>You don't need a leader who will waffle if you want to put pressure on
>an adversary. Agreed, you have to be sensible, but you also have to make
>the opponent stand down and take your threats to resist the aggressor's
>plans completely seriously.
>
>Clinton could have been arrested for what he was doing. But George Bush
>could have been killed for what he did. The question is do you think
>that freedom and peace are worth dying for? Bill Clinton's answer
>doesn't come as clearly for me as does George Bush's.

World War II ended almost 50 years ago, and sometime it might be okay to
elect a President who was not a war hero, or even a soldier.  The cold
war's over too.  While military security is important, it might not be the
MOST important thing any more.  ?



On a marginally related note, I have a fun theoretical question for you.

Suppose we decided that every American between the ages of 30 and 50 who
skipped the Vietnam War was inelegible to run for any public office.
Then, we also exclude any American who has every tried marijuana, because
it's illegal.  Also exclude any who have had extramarital sex, because
that reflects badly on their judgement.  Now:  how big is the remaining
pool of potential candidates?

Just for fun, also eliminate any who have had premarital sex or ever abused
alcohol.

How many are left?  Are the remaining people the best candidates?


---this is just for fun.
David.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6234 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6091
From: jseaver@banzai.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Taxing the Rich (was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate)
Date: 30 Sep 1992 13:39:12 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: banzai.wpi.edu

In article <BvDGCA.FMt@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> leescogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Lee) writes:
>I can't help but wonder why no one has brought up the idea of a flat tax rate
>again during this election.  If we really want an equitable solution to the
>problem of the rich not paying their fair share, then this would be the 
>answer.

	Someone did.  Jerry Brown.  Scary thought, that ol' Edmund would come
up with the most reasonable tax proposal?

>I would complain much less if everyone were charge a flat 5-10% of their gross
>income with no deductions and no adjustments to that income.  It would also
>seem reasonable that this would increase the amount of income to the U.S.  I
>don't, unfortunately, have any figures on how much this would increase the
>income and would be interested in some economics wizards putting the pencil
>to this.

	I think Brown's Flat Tax(tm :) was 15% with deductions for mortgage
payments and two other things.  Supposedly "it would have shrunk tax returns to
postcard size".
					-Jay

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
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: 28 Sep 1992 15:31:41 -0700
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <lcet04INN354@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>What is absurd is that there is any communication at all.  After all,
>the entire argument is based upon the disagreement over whether or not
>the fetus is person.  I haven't seen one argument that doesn't
>resort to this decision of faith (after all there is no way to prove
>either side is correct) as the "final argument."


Then you aren't looking very hard.  And I notice 7 different newsgroups, too,
and you haven't seen anything along these lines?  VERY busy 'n' key (not
but what I sympathize).

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: New Book
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:08:03 GMT
Summary: With all that free publicity, are you kidding???

In article <nate.579@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
> >While the threshold for getting a #1 non-fiction book is relatively low,
> >the potential "fan" audiences for Clinton and Gore should be very much
> >larger than Rush's.  Why their books aren't selling as well is anyone's
> >guess.
> 
>     When was the last time you heard an advertisement for either of their 
> books? I haven't ever seen a single one. Rush, on the other hand, has been 
> titillating his audience with news about his book for months, and he's 
> run numerous commercials for it. At the end of his show on Monday night 
> he sat at his desk browsing through a copy of the book (with title in plain 
> view).
> 
>     I wouldn't have thought that it was all that hard to figure out.
> 
Who are you trying to kid??  With all the publicity that Senator Ozhole's
book has received in the electronic and print media over the last several
months, *of course* it's not hard to figure out!  All Al had to do was let
a sympathetic media fall all over itself in proclaiming that he's the last
great eco-prophet of the ages.  Rush's self-promoting is miniscule by 
comparison.  I have yet to see or hear of one specific example of a
favorable review of Rush's book, by the way---not even in the Wall St. 
Journal. 

Yet it's encouraging to hear that Rush's book is selling like crazy while
Eco-Al's is starting to gather dust.  DITTOS for Billy-boy's "putting
people first" tract.  Wonder if Bill 'n Al should even bother considering
a paperback version.   Hmmmmmmm, then again, *theirs* should line the kitty
litter box a bit better, or be more than suitable for wrapping the fish....
especially those caught in that Arkansas river, from what I gather. 

                           *********************************************
                           Yeah, I'm BACK after not getting the chance to
                           post for several weeks.  Man your trenches, 
                           Alex and Zack....
                           *********************************************
    H.R. Holm
*standard disclaimers, comment my own,etc
 replies via the group only, please* 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Taxing the Rich (was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate)
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:45:14 GMT

larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:

>that they need to be excused from paying their fair share of tax.

Fine. My "fair share" of taxes should be equal or less than yours, since,
as a "rich" individual, I use an equal or less than amount of government-paid
facilities and services than a "poor" person does.


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Rush Limbaugh: a Misogynist Boor?
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:04:58 GMT

	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.

	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.
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A letter to Rush: what is a liberal
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:04:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR

Nathan writes:
>eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>Huh? I don't know where the Scrooge image of the rich came from, 
>
>    It came from Charles Dickens and Mike Milkin.

What was so terrible about Michael Milken?  Before you answer that, you
might want to read "Milking Milken" by Jacob Sullum, REASON, February 1991.
He became a symbol for greed, but he didn't live ostentatiously and he was
reported to be generous, and a nice guy.  He did commit some small crimes
(for which he is paying dearly -- far more than is just), but that isn't
how he made his money.  He did make a lot of money, but he made it making
even more money for other people -- is that such a crime?  He invented the
junk bond, without which there wouldn't have been a CNN, or many other new
enterprises that helped revitalize the economy.  He just doesn't seem like
such a horrible villin to me.
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: When did human life begin???  Re: "Snapple" Anti-Choice?
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:36:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.022043.6011@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.201833.26324@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>
>>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.
>
>Human life began millions, possibly billions of years ago.  Please subscribe
>to the newsgroup talk.origins for more details.

This gets my vote for the stalest, moldiest "joke" on Usenet.

GET SOME NEW MATERIAL, FER CRISSAKES!!

								- Kevin
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5919 talk.abortion:38683
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 25 Sep 92 21:14:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <Bv5Av7.4vM@ora.com> ellie@ora.com (Ellie Cutler) writes:
>>MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster) writes:
>>
>>:If you believe this, why are abortions justified in the case of the
>>:mother's life being in danger? Her life is no more valuable than the fetus's                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Remember this timely quote:
>
>     "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
>
>BELIEVE IT!
>-- 
>        Ellie Cutler
>
>        ellie@ora.com               
>        uunet!ora!ellie

How in the hell do you know what things would be like "IF" men got 
pregnant.  This is a weak ploy.

Ted

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

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
From: jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Family Leave
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:40:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Chevron

In article <1992Sep25.175925.9328@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>I think you have well argued the socialist side of this issue, that equality
>is the just goal.  What this really means is that to be equal we need to 
>bring the bottom up and, this is the important point, bring the top down.
>There is no other way to acheive an average, and in the end your scheme
>has produced just that - average schools.
>
>Your argument is an important side issue but what about the point of this
>approach by Bush?  That is, giving individuals the freedom to choose the
>destiny of their children.  Is the Pro-Choice movement limiting it's 
>definition of what choices are availabe?  Need I point out that the
>Constitution is a document about individual liberties?  I think that
>giving parents the choice is more honorable than your version of
>government coercion.
>
>The public schools would still receive the same amount of funding as long
>as the student population was maintained.  In order to maintain that 
>population it might be necessary to bus (yikes!) children to public 
>schools - is bussing now immoral?  Seems to me that the liberals were
>all for it when it fit their ends - what goes around comes around.
>
>Mike Best

Am I alone in not understanding what Mike's point is.  His follow up is
about a 1 out of ten on the complexity scale of this issue.  "Hey, let's
just label it socialism and state that we'll bring down standards, and
no one will try to look too deeply into the issue."  My wife spent 7
years teaching science at an inner city Houston high school (she thought
it was her duty to bring up the bottom, thus "depriving" middle class
schools of her exceptional teaching skills - would you disapprove of
this Mike?) and she feels that Bush's form of school choice would make a
bad situation worse, and I agree.
I guess the only people hurt by school choice would be the economically
disadvanteged ("poor" to those Rush listeners out there who are
befuddled by multi-syllabic words).  
But hey, only those liberals and socialists worry about them anyway.
-- 
John Viveiros     (jviv@chevron.com)
Chevron USA        Standard disclaimer applies
Midland TX 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 19:26:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes ...
[...]

To show just how inane his reasoning is, I've changed "fetus" to "tree"
and "abort" to "kill".  Otherwise, the paragraph is copied verbatim.
See how it reads _this_ way.

>Allow me to take this from another perspective -- has anyone ever
>proven that a partially developed tree is NOT alive? Allow me answer
>that -- no, nobody ever has. Therefore, it is entirely POSSIBLE -- not
>certain, mind you -- that killing a tree MAY be taking a life. Is
>society not supposed to err on the side of caution? If there is a
>possibility we are commiting genocide, shouldn't society listen to the
>better angels of their nature and put a stop to it? Just a thought.

And further ...

>Excuse me, but are you NUTS? Are you saying that the execution of
>individuals who (most would say) DESERVE to be put to death for
>committing crimes unimaginably heinous is more atrocious than the
>killing of an unborn child, who is the quintessence of innocence? I see
>a problem with your logic, my friend.

I see a problem with your morality.  You apparently think that _you_
are the only person qualified to decide which people are worthy of living
and which may be killed.

Isn't this more than a little arrogant?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Every improvement in communication
ray@netcom.com                 makes the bore more terrible"  Frank Moore Colby
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 19:46:29 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.202741.19551@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.013758.27703@versyss.com> keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes:
>>Regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, you end up having
>>to defend an uncomfortable position.  
>
>I diasgree.  The person in the uncomfortable position is the woman who has
>to make the decision.  It's relatively easy to sit back and flame away at
>the net without having been in a position where one might have to consider
>an abortion as an option.

I don't believe that you've considered this angle, let me specify..

The father is also (potentially) in an uncomfortable postion for the very
reason that should the woman _choose_ to have the child then he is partially
responsible for the care of the child.  You have claimed that men are totally
removed from the process thus they have no right to decide the fate of the
child.  Your point would be more valid if the father had absolutely no
responsibility for the child after birth (or during pregnancy).

Generally, your point sounds like women being able to "have their cake
and eat it too".  That is, they want the right to abort the child without
interference by the father while at the same time they want the option 
to make the father responsible for bringing up the child if it is born.
There is little justice in that philosophy.

>Actually, the irony of the abortion issue is that here we have the case of
>the "conservatives" (who espouse "individual rights" over "group rights")
>attempting to protect a right [to life] of a particular group [the unborn],
>while the "liberals" (who are purported to believe in "group rights" over
>"individual rights") are tring to protect a right [to consider abortion as
>an option] of the individual [the woman].

Nice try but way off.  A Conservative such as myself would argue that
the unborn do not have "group rights" - there is no such thing as a group
life for example.  The unborn, if human, have the same natural rights that
every other _individual_ has (i.e. the right to life).  Group rights imply
that group X has rights which differ from the rest of us and that are 
rights defined by the Government not by the nature of man.  There is only
one group, humans.

By the way, that Pro-choice people elevate the pseudo-right to "choose"
over the natural right to life seems awkward to me.  I understand the
utility of an abortion but doesn't it leave a bad taste in your mouth?
(sorry, bad phrase :))

Mike Best