HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:49:02 GMT

 >dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

  >In article <C0J7zq.J7G@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com 
  >(mike myke schwartz) writes:
  >> 
  >> It sickened and withered when the Democratic Fascist Party of America
  >> gained enough power to use it's army of secret police and government
  >> agencies to maintain its power.  They stand in the way of the
  >> country's best interests to maintain its power.  Their clear desire is
  >> to control all three branches of our government.

 >What a conspiracy theorist! The Democrats have an "army of secret 
 >police"? You can't honestly think this. Isn't the goal of the Repub-
 >lican party also to "control all three branches of government"?
 >-Scott

Well, one thing we can all be certain of, no matter how you feel about
the process, is that there will be no special persecutors appointed to
investigate the White House during the next four years.  Guaranteed.

|===========================================================================|
|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        |
|===========================================================================|
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:14:51 -0500 
From: Gary James Patalsky <gp2f+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Clinton and the deficit


Clinton is already using an $18 billion increase in the predicted
deficit to back out of his promise to half the budget by the end of his
4 year term.  Interestingly, Clinton had estimated the deficit during
the campaign at $400 billion, making the deficit $80 billion below his
own estimates.

Also, it seems that he will not be lowering the taxes of the middle
class, as he had promised.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 19:09:25 GMT

dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>So what do you conservative types think of the Bush pardons?  Over on
>your second favorite newsgroup, alt.fan.dan.quayle, they're pretty
>upset about it.  I don't think anyone is really surprised Bush did it,
>though. I guess things will be pretty boring scandal-wise now that the
>party of the 'moral right' won't be in charge anymore.
>-Scott

Scandal?  Oh, you mean like the current score?

	Special Persecutor Walsh = 	30-50 million taxbucks
	Taxpayers and Common Sense = 	 0

Seems to me that what we really need is another special prosecutor to 
figure out what he did with the 30-50 mil.  Bush's mistake wasn't in
granting pardons, it was in failing to have Walsh charged with theft.

By the way, I haven't read alt.fan.dan.quayle, but given the history of this
board, I'm sure everything will be cross-posted here eventually anyway.

|===========================================================================|
|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        |
|===========================================================================|
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11377 talk.politics.misc:66132
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 93 18:58:02 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:

> Has anyone noted that Rush, and most other "Conservatives", support the
> measure which passed in Colorado (family values and all that)?
> 
> Yet, is not one of the founding principles of conservative thought that the
> government should make fewer laws, and leave people more alone (than the
> liberals)?
> 
> Indeed, just what kind of hypocrits are these folks?

Well... I'm not sure they're really hypocrites. "anti-discrimination"
laws, for all their good intent, are still laws, and attempt to control
a social ill (racism/sexism/anti-gay ("homophobe" has been rendered more
meaningless than "fascist")) through legislation.

Imagine, for a second, that virtually all anti-discrimination laws were
repealed, effective immediately. What would the net effect be?

My guess is that it would be very little. Any company that had a policy
of not hiring people simply because of their skin color of sex would be
presumably passing over qualified employees for less qualified ones, and
would find itself out of investors.

Imagine the fallout from the public: A personnel agency here in NY was
found to be discriminating against blacks and hispanics. State hit it
with a fine of several thousand dollars. But what put them out of
business was the hundreds of people who picketed the place (rightfully,
I might add).

Anti-discrimination laws had their place and time, as did labor unions
and war bonds. But now, anybody who is stupid enough to admit to racism
is branded an idiot, and shunned professionally and socially. People who
have a senseless dislike for homosexuals are beginning to get the same
treatment.



--
"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

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11940 talk.politics.misc:66720
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 14:59:56 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder) writes:

> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) says:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >My disgust at this situation mainly stems from the way Coloradans bought 
> >the lie that this proposition was to prevent Gays from voting themselves 
> >rights above and beyond the rights of normal citizens when it was a 
> >simple case of allowing gays to remain second rate citizens.
> 
> One wonders if the conversion of the Civil Rights movement from one that
> originally preached equal treatment for all races to one that is little
> more than a mad scramble for preferential treatment and quotas had anything
> to do with how easily Coloradans could be convinced that Gay Rights was
> just a cover for more of the same excesses that were committed in the name
> of Civil Rights. The Wall Street Journal had an op-ed piece by the editor
> of some Colorado newspaper (the Rocky Mountain News, I think) that made that
> point.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu
> 
> If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------


In the days of the Civilrights bill Foofarah, when every other TV 
appearance of Bush showed him opposing "quotas", "quotas", quotas", not 
to manty people actually noted that the Bill in queation did have a line 
that did indeed outlaw outright, quotas.
  This did not prevent Bush from claiming to oppose this law claiming it 
would establish quotas when indeed he knew full well it did not, and in 
fact did just the opposite.  But it went over so well politically, Bush 
couldn't help himself.  Your objection shows me a lot of people are still 
being manipulated by fearmongering fools rather than looking at this 
issue carefully and honestly.  This would have in no way given 
supercitizen status to gays.  These sort of claims rank down there with 
Phyllis Schlafly's claims that the ERA amendment would have mandated 
unisex restrooms throughout Christian America. Fatous nonsense, but 
people are so eager to believe the most outragous crap.
  That nobody ever called Bush down over his lies about Quotas and the 
Civil Rights Bill is a shame.  But I think is time to start pointing out 
the similar lies involved with Colorado's Proposition 2.

--
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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: an5411@anon.penet.fi (DeepThought)
Subject: On campus PC requires Anon postings
Organization: Anonymous contact service
X-Anonymously-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 12:06:00 GMT


I have decided to start posting through an anon source because
of speak codes at the university at which I am employed.  A friend
suggested that I was in voilation of university speech codes after 
reading several postings.

On to business.

Rumor has it that Donna Shalalala ( soon to be head of HHS ) will not
face any challenge during her confirmation hearing.  The religious
right wanted to play up her homosexuality, but republican leaders
rightfully decided against this.  Ms. Shalala is one of the few strong
targets republicans have because of her involvement at U of W ( Madison ).
She is the high priestest of PCness.  Under her leadership, U of W
enacted speech codes which violate students 1st amendment rights.  The
same speak codes that are forcing me to use anon postings.  This point
should be used to damage Ms. Shalala without mention of her sexual 
preference.  I know some people will flame me on leaving out sexuality,
but it is dumb politics!  

She must be attacked to the point that it attracts major news coverage.

Your views are greatly appreciated ( in a spirit of non-PC ).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+  He's anti-PC man!                                               +
+                                                                  +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind system, any replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
From: tanj@catnip.berkeley.ca.us (Ren and Stimpy's Love Child)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:02:58 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hecate's Sandbox

In article <1993Jan8.155238.7975@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>The woman hung out a sign that said "baby welcome" when she had sex.  It 
>is one of those laws of nature, when women have sex, babies will result.  
>Not always, but sometimes.  Therefore, if the baby would be an intruder, 
>then don't hang out the welcome sign.

The woman hung out a sign that said "rapist welcome" when she went outside
her home.  It is one of those laws of nature, when women go out in the world,
rape will result.  Not always, but sometimes.  Therefore, if the rapist
would be an intruder, then don't hang out the welcome sign.

--Teddi
-----------------Another Catholic School Survivor (12 years!)-----------------
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:35:12 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1icchdINNmki@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> gerberrl@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Richard L. Gerberding) writes:
>dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>> 
>> So what do you conservative types think of the Bush pardons?

My opinion - there went the rule of law.  Now it is the rule of patriotism,
and the rule of lie (to congress).

>I'm a conservative type who is all for it.  In this month's reader's  
>digest (maybe last months, I read it while at home over break) there is an  
>article by Fred Barnes about how special prosecutor Walsh went after  
>people for anything that might have caused anything to happen.  Walsh has  
>spent OVER 20 MILLION DOLLARS, and what has he discovered as a result of  
>this - NOTHING. 

North and Poindexter were convicted.  CONVICTED.  They were found to be guilty.
Their convictions were overturned not on the basis of any new evidence, o
that they were in fact innocent,  but the fact that some of their admissions
of guilt in testifying to congress may have tainted the court proceedings.
Note, that if they hadn't admitted culpability to congress, then there
could have been no tainting.

Walsh discovered a lot.  It's just been effectively reversed, or pardoned.

>    I realize the need for watchdogs and keeping politicians  
>honest, but I also think that the special prosecutor law should have been  
>modified so that there is a limit on what may be spent - say 5 million or  
>so (funny how that seems like pocket change anymore) and if no solid leads  
>are found, the investigation should end.

In other words, you give the Presidency a goal - if you can get enough
Lt. Col's to lie to lie to congress long enough, and if you can bury the
evidence deep  enough, so that it will take more than XXXX dollars to find,
you win the game?   Not very palatable.

Should we do the same thing for murder trials for mob figures?  If you can't
convict John Gotti for less than $100,000, then we should forget it?
In that case, all he has to do is buy enough crooked laywers to make it
too expensive through injunctions, motions to dismiss, etc...


>                                               Walsh for the past year or so  
>has been desperate to find anything he can to save face.  

Either that, or he is showing the righteous indignation of a man who has
seen massive government corruption, and yet cannot bring the villians
to justice.

>while Walsh is throwing away millions which will benefit no one.  As for  
>people who wonder why Bush would pardon people he claims are innocent, Why  
>not?  Is it better to see how many more millions could be thrown down the  
>drain?  

I don't wonder...   one, cover his own ass,  and two, he doesn't give a damn
about the law, constitution, and the American people.   Just like Reagan.

Now we find out what he holds sacred - patriotism, not the law.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.transcripts?
Keywords: show summaries, new newsgroup
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 17:09:22 GMT

In article <Jan.11.14.27.32.1993.10170@math.rutgers.edu> leahy@math.rutgers.edu (Andrew Leahy) writes:
>
>There's a line in my .newsrc file for a group called 
>`alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.transcripts'.  I assume that this is the
>moderated group that was supposed to carry the summaries by
>jrs@netcom.com.  However, at this point, the group doesn't 
>appear to have anything in it.  Is this a problem at my site, or are
>there other reasons why the transcripts aren't being posted to this
>group?

I tried posting to this group when it first was created, but my posts
were returned as undeliverable. I don't have a clue as to how moderated
newsgroups work, so I'm a bit mystified by it.
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- MST3K's Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, 
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | after TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: alt.conservative.forum
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Date:  7 JAN 93 07:33:49 EST


In article <C0FzEu.JvK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer
kyle cramm) writes...

>I do
>not get to hear his radio show, and would like to catch up on what has been
>said without sifting through a large number of postings about other worthy
>ideas.

If that is all you want, then all you have to do is perform a topic/subject
search via your newsreader to locate the SUMMARY titles via John Switzer. They
are summaries of each of Rush's shows. They are concise and accurate with very
little editorializing by John. 

Before I was able to receive Rush via radio during the day, I depended on
John's summaries to keep me up to date. In fact, when I miss a day, I make sure
I read the summary so that I keep informed.

I also believe that all that would happen with a .conservative group is that
everyone would start cross posting everything between this group and the
conservative group and then we'd have a whole bunch extra cross-posted dupes to
have to wade through in 2 groups.

I believe that if a .conservative group were to be created, then discussions
which reference Rush should be prohibited, or at the very least, cross posting
should be prohibited (then again, cross posting in MOST cases should be
prohibited anyway).

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
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 23:29:41 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.151346.14536@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>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 deficit for 1992 was ~$290B.  The $399B figure was from the mid-year
>estimate.  Half of the difference was a ~$50B S&L bailout package that
>congress refused to pass in an election year.  We'll pay for that (and more)
>in the 1993 budget.
>
Do you mean I made an error? wow. :)

It would seem though that someone insisting that the deficit was only
290 billion dollars is practicing the new math taught in schools these
days.

Thank you for posting something a little more informative than "you're wrong,
Nyah,Nyah!"

Anyone have any idea what the deficit really was for the past fiscal year?
Not including various manipulations to make things look better in an
election year, of course.

>> >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
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Carol Mosely Braun
Summary: Rush needs to watch tactics
Keywords: Welfare, Vacation
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:58:49 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


  I am from Illinois, and did not vote for Braun because she did not have 
the abilities to be a Senator.  She might have been a quailfied Representative,
but not a Senator.  With that said, I would like to take exception to Rush's
TV show last night.  He needs to tone down his attack on Braun, because it
is counterproductive!  It looks like he is going after her because she is a 
black woman.  Don't get me wrong, she should be attacked for her actions, but
he should think about how best to do so for a larger effect.  Conservatives
already know she was a bad choice for the Senate, but know it is time to    
convince the middle ( liberals will never see their folly ).
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,sci.econ,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: 8 Jan 93 16:52:32 CST


In article <2171@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> In article <1993Jan7.160030.1478@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> >Bush's own budget estimates show annual deficits >$300 Billion thru 1998.
> 
>  Thats was the ceiling I was refering to.
> 
> >"Keynes large centralist corporations"?  What are you talking about?
> 
>  Centralist control. I have probably been reading to much lately, no doubt.
>  Large 'facist' corporations married to government which are easily controlled
> in a keynesian type fashion. The Phillips curve needed them to operate.

Huh?  I think you have Keynesian economics confused with something else.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:24:31 GMT

> = (Stephen A "Dysfunctional Family" Chaney) writes:
>> = (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:

>>[the usual Chaney woman-bashing, anyone-left-of-Attila-the-Hun-bashing
>>deleted -- you've only seen this a few hundred times, already...PLH]

>Coming from the race-bashing, anything-right-of-Jane-Fonda-hating
>Lying Klansman from Texas.. 

Say, StevDen: have your parents apologized for throwing your brother out
of the house yet?  Have you gotten therapy for the probable psyche
erasee you experienced?

[...]
>And of course you know I do not threaten people, and that you 
>you yourself asked me to come down to Klansville to ask you for your 
>apology to a racist comment you made to me. 

Well, you told Patrick in e-mail that you'd "take care of him once and
for all."

What do you call that, Worm Meat?

>		|      |Come on, Steve.  Let's  |      | 
>		|      |see just how much of a  |      | 
>		|      |boy you are.  March     |      | 
>		|      |your fat black ass down |      | 
>		|      |here and tell me I'm a  |      | 
>		|      |liar, to my face.       |      | 
                Patrick Humphrey

Meester Balsa Glider Chaney/Hall:

You could save a lot of bandwidth by simply admitting that Patrick's
challenge scared the SHIT out of you, probably made you tremble and cry.
You're understandably frightened to DEATH of saying to someone's face
the twisted garbage you post in t.a., and instead, like a little tyke behind 
his (strange) mother's skirt, stick your tongue out at that big bully
Patrick.     


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com