HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:42:52 GMT

In article <16B4B8D3.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>In article <C08L2F.I7F@ddsw1.mcs.com>
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>I have noticed a definite hypocrisy in the term "Conservative", especially
>>as applied by Rush...
>>
>>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,
>
>       Just to make a point, a position that the government should make
>fewer laws does not mean that you object to every new law which comes
>down the pike simply because it is a new law.
>
>>and leave people more alone (than the
>>liberals)?
>
>       Actually, the impression I get is that the problem with the
>Colorado amendment is that it leaves people *too much* alone.  That
>the government doesn't step in at the "right" times.
>

My impression of the Colorado amendment is that it
prohibits the creation of laws which forbid discrimination
based on sexual orientation. In other words, it doesn't say 
explicity that discrimination against gays is legal; what it
says is that attempts to outlaw discrimination against gays
is illegal, which in practical terms amounts to the same thing.

So we now have, in Colorado, for the first time since slavery
was abolished, a situation in which discrimination against
a person, on grounds which are extraneous to the situation at hand,
is now sanctioned by the state, in that the discriminatee is
explicitly denied the equal protection of the law.

I wasn't aware that denial of the equal protection of the law,
in violation of provisions of the U.S. Constitution,
was a 'conservative' position.

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
>               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
>               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:46:07 GMT

parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>In article <1992Dec28.154215.13989@rchland.ibm.com> 
>>jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:

>>> This is the same attitude I have seen from pro-lifers
>>> all along.  They'll get arrested to save a life, but
>>> once the baby is born they could care less.  Try to get
>>> some of these folks to support social programs like
>>> WIC or foodstamps.  

>>Actually, most pro-lifers that I know support social
>>programs like WIC and foodstamps.  And the poor tend 
>>to be the strongest opponents of abortion.  

>Something just doesn't sit right when people in poverty are having more
>children than people who are well off.  And people wonder how a country can
>end up with 1% of the population owning 99% of the wealth.  It's sad.

Ahh.. yes.. I understand you here.  It's horrible that anybody should
become successful by their work, and the work of their parents.  God forbid.

>>But I don't follow your reasoning.  If someone supports 
>>the criminalization of an immoral act, then why must they 
>>support those who wish to commit that act?  Does my support 
>>of rape laws imply that I must satisfy the desires of  
>>potential rapists?  If not, then what's the difference
>>between that and abortion? 

>Hold on.  In the case of rape, the attacker is adding a burden to society
>through hospital care and police investigation of a violent crime.  In the
>case of abortion, a burden is *removed* from society.  (or an individual,
>depending on whether you think society or the parents should be responsible)
>It is not the one doing or having the abortion, it is the child that results
>from *not* having the choice of abortion that we expect you to support.  Your
>rape analogy does not hold.

Ahh.. so removing burdens from society then allows me to ignore any moral
or ethical considerations to the contrary?  I think bums are a burden
on society, let's kill them all.  We'll cut them into little pieces 
just like when we abort babies.  

>>>Jared Dahl

>>Doug Holtsinger

>-Rob


Edward Simmonds

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11827 alt.rush-limbaugh:13226
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH'S 'HIT' LIST (additions)
From: choover@charlie.usd.edu (Christopher J. Hoover)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 16:46:36 GMT
Reply-To: choover@charlie.usd.edu
Organization: The University of South Dakota Computer Science Dept.

A question for y'all.

My wife, who has listened to Rush a bit more than I have, maintains that he has
from time to time done something called an "Indian Update" when various native
issues came up, complete with war whoops and the like, which from her 
description sounds a little, well, offensive.

But she doesn't remember it all that well.  Not wanting to complain about this
without proof, can anyone provide an accurate account of theme
music/description of noises/etc. for this one, or confirm that Rush even did an
"Indian Update"?

Thanks in advance,

Chris

---

Christopher Hoover                               choover@charlie.usd.edu
Network Coordinator for Student Life             Disclaimer:  Standard.
User Services, University of South Dakota
.sig line:  "I'm still looking for the right quote."
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:54:42 GMT

In article <FFsTwB1w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>
>Imagine, for a second, that virtually all anti-discrimination laws were
>repealed, effective immediately. What would the net effect be?
>

One immediate effect: someone who could prove that he/she was denied say,
a job, for reasons of race or gender would have no recourse under the
law.

>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.
>

This is a nice-sounding argument: 'the private sector will punish those
who discriminate'. The problem is that there are (and have been) situations
in which the economic penalty for not hiring say, blacks, was considerably
less than the penalties FOR hiring them. If a vast majority supports
discrimination against blacks, and punishes those who don't discriminate,
then it makes sense economically to discriminate. True, you lose the
black market, but this may very well be inconsequential if the market
is mostly white. (Substitute anything you want for 'black and white').

This situation existed in this country for hundreds of years, and it
was not changed by private-sector initiatives.

BTW - your 'presumably' is not actually very presumable. The concept
of 'qualified' is very hazy, and is often difficult to determine before
the fact. Also, companies in their hiring practices (like consumers in
their buying practices) rarely strive for the absolute 'best' in a
job applicant. A company can easily exclude whole sectors of the
population (blacks, women, gays) and still have little trouble finding
'qualified' applicants. In fact, they did this for years, and in many
cases are still doing so.


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes:

> In article <1993Jan7.054906.111@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (
> David Marc Nieporent) writes:
> >
> > [In response to a poster who inferred that all wars were started by 
> > Democrats.]
> >
> >How about REPUBLICAN President McKinley, who did everything possible to
> >get us into a war with Spain?
> 
>      Bizzzzz! I'm sorry, that's wrong. The correct answer is: McKinley had to 
> be pushed *hard* by the "yellow press" and other elements to declare war on 
> Spain over Cuba. McKinley remembered the carnage of the Civil War and hated to 
> see it happen again. Once the war finally started, though, it is true that 
> McKinley gained enthusiasm (just like the American people during the Gulf War)
> 
>                                         Steve

My understanding is that McKinley was somewhat anti-expansionist, but
Roosevelt and Mahan and others pushed strongly for this sort
of expansionist behavior.  One of the strongest opponents, and the
man who put off the annexation of Hawaii for some time was Thomas Reed,
republican speaker of the house.

We got Hawaii and Puerto Rico and McKinley had a date with an anarchist...

doug
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative? Hahaha....
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 01:23:12 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

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

> In <Luc3wB5w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C.
> 
> |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.
> 
> When is a quota not a quota.
> In the Backey (sp?) case a white guy sued to get into a medical school.
> The supreme court ruled that while quotas were not permissable, guidelines
> were.
> 
> Now under the new bill, a company can be sued into oblivion because they
> do not meet some social engineers guidelines on racial equality.
> 
> Being sued because you haven't met your quota.
> Being sued because you haven't met your guideline.
> 
> I don't see the difference.
> -- 
> Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itse
> a government.
> It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
> Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com


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

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


--
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: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Talking bout Rush and the Great Conspiracy
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:04:03 GMT

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>Robert Johnston - Not liberal, Not conservative; just me and my brain.

    Careful Robert, you're on the verge of sounding like one of those 
naughty "moderates" Rush is so fond of bashing... I caught one of the 
reruns last week in which Rush was really doggin' us middle-of-the-roaders 
for not having any strength of moral conviction, but he was dead wrong on 
that point. I have plenty of conviction. I'm convinced that the extremists 
from both sides have it wrong. The world I see is far too sublime and 
wonderful to ever be adequately depicted in black and white.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 19:53:50 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1993Jan5.232941.17860@news.columbia.edu>, rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
> 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:

> >> >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!"

Robert - You're right.  My posting was petty and didn't contribute to the point 
of the debate.  I apologize.  


===============================================================================

William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"Thanksgiving Day.  In the days of our  founders, they  were  willing to give
 thanks for mighty little, for mighty little was all they expected.  But now,
 neither government nor  nature  can  give  enough but what we think it's too
 little.  Those old boys  in  the fall of the year, if they could gather in a
 few pumpkins, potatoes and some corn for the winter, they were in a thanking
 mood.  If we can't gather in a new  Buick, a  new  radio, a  tuxedo and some 
 government relief, why, we feel that the world is against us."

												Will Rogers

===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum)
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:02:40 GMT

Mike Jones (mjones@fenway.aix.kingston.ibm.com) wrote:
: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) 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
: : : 
: In fact, my assertion (left in the mass above) was that there is no
: meaningful way to claim this. Yes, you can pick two points and show a
: decline, but why did you pick those points? The 85-89 (or sometimes -90)
: points are often chosen by Reaganista True Believers, but I've always been
: puzzled by why they seem to be able to swallow the idea that it took four
: years for Reagan to turn around what they claim were Carter problems (with
: the help of a Republican senate, no less!), but no time at all for that
: noted socialist George Bush to make hash out of the goodness which flowed
: from the pen of Saint Ron.
:

The FY1989 budget was Reagan's.  The 1986 tax bill was his, too.  I apologize,
but my book did not have data for 1986, or I would have posted it, too.
Reagan and his men were BRILLIANT with the economy.  It took them 2 years
to reverse a terrible economy with even worse direction/outlook.  He 
deliberately caused a recession in 1982, fully knowing that the BOOM would
follow.  He also knew that government revenues would significantly raise
due to lower tax rates and knew that it was key to control government
spending.  He called for the line-item veto, and a balanced budget amendment
back then.  I lived through the 70s and remember how big a deal inflation
and interest rates were.  I remember Brazil with 300% inflation, defaulting
on its bank loans, and our inflation rate in double digits and rising.

FWIW, I liked the 86 tax bill, too.  It has long reaching ramifications, not
unlike those we feel from FDR's terms.  It encourages a society without debt,
rather than one with.  It eliminated a lot of loopholes for the rich and forced
them to pay taxes (at all :).
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Borgy Boy's squeals
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:07:12 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:

> Gee Borgy Boy, you sure hate Clinton don't ya.  Well he is going to be 
> president in a few short days for 4 whole years at least.  Can ya dig it!

Sure is. Us free-thinkers have had to make to with laughing at congress
for the last 12 years - now we have the executive branch to laugh at as
well.

> 4 very lonnnnnnnnnnnng years.  And if he is half way competent, and there 
> is no reason to suspect not, considering America's low expectations as 
> shown by our tolerance of Reagan and Bush, he will win re-election.

Competent? Depends on your definition. He's not stupid; I refer to him
as "Slick Willie" because I do admire his intelligence. It's his total
lack of integrity or principle that I find contemptible.
  
> You will most likely have Slick Willy
> for 8 long years.

Hah! Not. the '92 election was a national temper tantrum. I think after
four years of no allowance, the electorate might remember why we evicted
Carter in 1979.

> And if Gore tries to run, he'll probably be in for 8
> more years.

Right. Once we have a couple hundred thousand industrial workers tossed
out of profitable jobs because the tree-huggers object, I'm sure Gore
will be really popular. Personally, I don't care - the industry I'm in
will profit from the Green Terror, but I feel sorry for all the union
schmucks who voted for Willie.

> Have you thought about immigrating?

Emigrating, twit. Emigrating. Not when I can stay here and make a
bundle.


--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.limbaugh
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: We need more liberalism!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:16:22 GMT

In article <PATRICK.93Jan5184149@rio-grande.is.rice.edu> patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <16B4DDB46.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU> VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
>
>   In article <1993Jan5.184147.6522@csus.edu>
>   chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Thoughtcrime Convict #12273-101) writes:
>
>   [Steve's message deleted for brevity]
>
>   >
>   >N   N  Y   Y  EEEEE  TTTTT     K   K  OOOOO  M   M  RRRRR    A    DDDD  !!
>   >NN  N   Y Y   E        T       K  K   O   O  MM MM  R   R   A A   D   D !!
>   >N N N    Y    EEEEE    T       KKK    O   O  M M M  RRRRR  AAAAA  D   D !!
>   >N  NN    Y    E        T       K  K   O   O  M   M    R R  A   A  D   D !!
>   >N   N    Y    E        T       K   K  O   O  M   M   R  R  A   A  D   D
>   >N   N    Y    EEEEE    T       K   K  OOOOO  M   M  R   R  A   A  DDDD  !!
>   >
>
>   Close but not quite right.
>
>   Actually, the backwards looking "R" doesn't sound like an "R" at all in
>   Russian; instead it is pronounced something like "Yo" (Y in Yellow and
>   the short O in stOp).  I can't remember for sure but I thought it sounded
>   very much like "yesy" in German.  The correct letter to put there is a
>   "P", yes a Russian "P" sounds like an English "R", only they trill theirs.
>
>The backwards "R" (for lack of a better term) is the last letter in the
>conventional ordering of the Cyrillic alphabet -- and it's Ya.  "yo" is the
>E with the umlaut over it.
>
>   (I know what Rush would say to that - "That's something that only a
>   commie liberal traitor would know.")
>
>It's hilarious, anyway -- it's not even Russian.  There is no word spelled
>"komrad" in Russian that I've ever seen -- and "comrade" is more usually
>spelled "tovarishch" (with that last "shch" represented by *one* Cyrillic
>letter).  I got a BA in Russian Studies 16 years ago, and *I* can remember
>that much of the language -- Steve's just foaming at the mouth again

I'm far from being an expert in a foreign language (unless learning morse
code counts! :-) ) but I've always been facinated with how English seems
to be less 'phonetic' than other languages.  We sometime use one letter
to represent different sounds, whereas in Russian each Cyrllicpared to the
26 used for English.  Silly question, but is a language easier to learn
if it has a larger alphabet?

Supposedly English is considered the most difficult to learn.



Simon

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.correct
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Talking bout Rush and the Great Conspiracy
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:44:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.160850.18112@nwnexus.WA.COM> pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe) writes:
>
>Oh well - as the old cliche has it, Conservatives think
>that Liberals are wrong; Liberals think that Conservatives
>are stupid.
>chus
>pyotr
>
>

And the rest of us just wonder when consevatives AND liberals will
start using more than one neuron at a time.

I really wonder why people can't think for themselves rather than let
their decisions be dictated by some arbitrary label that has been attached
to them.

Robert Johnston - Not liberal, Not conservative; just me and my brain.


Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12068 alt.rush-limbaugh:13478