HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Keywords: Rush Liberal Media Anita Hill Clarence Thomas
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:08:52 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Oct14.214550.14858@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
> >Hmm... can we look at things like say a lie detector test? or maybe two
> >of them? Oh -yeah - I forgot, once she passed the two lie detector
> >tests she became a nut who was convinced of her story (thus the
> >reason she passed the examinations) but as sadly delusional... 
> 
> A polygraph is about as reliable as a Magic 8 Ball, and considerably
> harder to use.

Ah yes ... the conservative "when it serves me I love it otherwise it is crap"
approach to life - I love it...

> The problem with the whole situation was this: One person made an
> allegation that CAN NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED, and all sorts of hearings
> were held. 

  This is pretty much the case whenever there is no witness to a crime is it
not? This man was up for one of the most important positions in our govt.
if he has no ethics I want to know about it... 

> People were yelling for him not to be confirmed because either
> a) Anita has an honest looking face, so she couldn't possibly lie; or

 or she passed two lie detector tests and ol Thomas wouldn't take one...


			gln
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6917 alt.activism.d:3668 alt.politics.elections:15730 alt.politics.bush:8274 alt.politics.clinton:9195 talk.politics.misc:50423 talk.abortion:41480
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
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: 8 Oct 92 18:14:55 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct6.165152.18989@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>This is patently false.  87% of americans have comprehensive health 
>care plans.  

1) 87% of Americans do not have comprehensive health care plans.

2) A significant percentage of health plans do not pay labor and delivery
  or prenatal care.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:43:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.083321.25736@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>
>
>	The issue as I understand it, is not merely that he went to
>the Soviet Union so soon afterwards, but that he denied going there
>when asked about it on television.
>
This is a new one on me.  I have never heard Clinton deny that he went
to the Soviet Union.  He has denied that his trip was paid for by the
KGB (a preposterous, unsubstantiated assertion to begin with).

Paul.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7564 talk.abortion:42898
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon Admits he's a Nazi (no film at 11 due to lack of interest)
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:38:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Oct14.151422.1662@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.194614.14480@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13.024022.15517@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
>>>Thank you Simon. I always thought you were a fascist. Having you state it
>>>plainly on the net is very honest of you.

>>So Orwell was then a fascist because he wrote about Big Brother in "1984"??
>>I always thought that "1984" was a criticism of fascism/Nazism.  I'm
>>automatically a Nazi for planning to write about how such a system could
>>come to power under the right circumstances.  

>Umm, I think that the reason why Nadja (and I and perhaps others) think
>you're a fascist is not that you want to right the book that you're
>describing, but that you are giving us the impression that you think
>that the future your creating in your novel is a future you'd like to
>see come true.  So Orwell's "1984" was a criticism of fasism/nazism -
>is your novel a criticism of the police state which crushes all who
>protest unpopular in unpopular causes (your rampant liberalism) or do
>you revel in such a dream of the future.  From you're posts it seems
>the latter.

Amen. But don't expect Simon to understand what you've said. He's very
much wrapped up in his romantic self image of 'saviour of potential
people...'


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:16:57 GMT

> = (Ted "Blinders" Krueger) writes:
>> = (Michael Polen) writes:
>>> = (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>>> 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.

>>That is all pro-choice advocates are saying.  Thank you for joining.

>This is such crap.  Perhaps you feel this way, but the leaders of 
>NOW and NARAL certainly do not.  Please watch next time any state 
>tries to enact things like parental notification or waiting periods 
>which just might have the chance of reducing the numbers of abortions.

Parental notification, to anyone thinking through the possibilities, is
so useless that anyone more aware than Krueger (e.g., an opossum) can
figure out the cruel scenarios that would result.

Just to help Teddy Bear along, I'll give him one leetle example:

  A pregnant girl required to "notify" abusive parents that her father
  has impregnated her. 



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH: OUT OF A JOB?
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:55:03 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <1992Oct7.201838.19131@cs.mcgill.ca> costin@cs.mcgill.ca (Costin RIZAN) writes:
>In article <!9sz4tg@rpi.edu> root@june.cmp.rpi.edu () writes:
>>In article <2566.339.uupcb@eabbs.uucp> neil.black@eabbs.uucp (Neil Black)  writes:
>>> [Clinton elected, Rush out of a job stuff deleted]
>>>        
>>
>>Gee, I didn't know Rush is on the air because George Bush is President!
>>
>>I thought the reason might be the 12 million listeners, the fact his show is 
>>the number #1 talk show in the country.
>>I don't think 12 million people will vanish when Clinton gets elected next 
>>month.
>>
>>It makes me laugh that liberals scream about freedom of speech, it seems they
>>only want to protect it when they agree with its content.
>>
>	Notice he didn't say that he was threatened by Rush. All he said
>basically was that Rush is an imbecile. An opinion that most people with
>a double digit I.Q. share.

I've said it before, the leftist approach begins with the premise that
the rest of us are idiots.  This is the level from which the argument
procedes.

>	As far as I'm concerened I don't give a damn about Rush's opinions.
>I think he's a turn off for the republican party. I suspect that even long
>lasting republicans don't want to be identified with this cretin.

I disagree, he has brought energy to the conservative side.  Also, notice
how the term "cretin" has been used to impugn his arguments and character
without ever having to get substantive.  This supports my comments above.

>	I think most of his audience tune in because he's simply too
>grotesque to miss. It's the same phenomenon that makes people gather
>around the scene of an accident and stare at the victims being carried
>out.

Not really, the real reason he is popular is that he has the pulpit and
the eloquence that most people who support his views do not.  They rally
behind him because he gives voice to what they feel but have been denied
due to the bias in the media.  It's like what the people did during the
Gulf War with the yellow ribbons, they couldn't voice their support in
any other way.  I found it and I find Rush quite refreshing.

Mike "IQ 7" Best
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:45:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct15.233451.12931@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>Come on folks, this [Clinton, I think... -mvp] is for our own good.  

Yeah, that's what they told the cat when they took him to the vet
to be "fixed".

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:15:54 GMT

dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>Then you must also agree that an infant sucking on a woman's breast
>is also a "parasite", since the infant is living off the woman, 
>damaging her body, and giving her nothing if she does not want
>the infant.  

As I've said in the past, yes, I agree with this.  You never
followed that up.  Do you have some sort of _point_ here?

>Doug Holtsinger

                        -rocker
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:34:21 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

> 
> As far as waffling goes, for the most part, Clinton has had to refine his
> position after learning more facts involved, case in point, NAFTA. As far
> as the draft issue, many people don't remember what happened from day to day
> over 20 years ago. When confronted with official records on things Clinton
> had forgotten about, he didn't attempt to deny them.
> 
> People put down Clinton to admitting to trying marijuana by ridiculing his
> claim that he "didn't inhale". Many first time tryers were only falling under
> peer pressure and didn't inhale either. And in Clinton's case, it was hard
> for him as he was not a smoker and had severe allergy problems (and still does).
> 
> -- 
> Zack Sessions
> 

Come on Zack. It is obvious here that Bill Clinton tried to avoid the draft.
I don't think that is the problem, it is the outright lies, yes LIES. You 
can't possibly think that a man trying to avoid the draft is going to forget
that he got a draft, it probably shocked the hell out of him.

As far as the marijuana thing, which I did not bring up, but since you did,
I will comment on it. He did say when asked if he did try it, I never broke
and US laws, anot a lie, but certainly not telling the whole truth, ie
trying to say he never smoked it. At least Gore came out and said, yea I
tried it and the subject was dropped. Clinton would have saved a lot of
further questions and ridicule if he would have just come clean on various
subjects, it might have won hin the election!

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7011 alt.activism.d:3713 alt.politics.elections:15940 alt.politics.bush:8490 alt.politics.clinton:9491 talk.politics.misc:50664 talk.abortion:41748
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out (perhaps) pro-choice
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:49:37 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> >|>
|> >Vagueness isn't your problem.  Your desire to hold an extremest
|> >position that leaves no room for people to be people is your problem.
|> >So far I have not met anyone who is perfect, but you expect people
|> >to be perfect or pay.  Hopefully the courts and the law will continue
|> >to help you keep your problem to yourself.
|> >
|> Being Pro-Life is not a problem.  And if I keep it to myself the issue
|> will not go away.  I thought I lived in America......
|> 
You do live in america.  And no one is asking you to keep the issue
to yourself.  You read what you wanted into my statement.  You have the
right to convince people to not have abortions.  You have the right to
not have one yourself (not to mention the right to ask *your* wife not to
have one).  But you don't have the right to tell *my* wife she can't 
have one.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him #2
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:16:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.181224.21287@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.040509.9447@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>Well, I plan to depict the riot police being fully armed, and using
>>white posphorus instead of tear gas.  Now, since in my story assulting
>>police officers, especially pulling guns on them, would be a capital offense,
>>those who escaped would either face on the spot execution,or the death penalty
>>after trial.  f course, this would all be televised, to make examples of the
>
>I suppose that in your world, defending yourself against a police
>assault would also be an "assault".  How convenient.
>
Well, actually since those attacked are criminals, this would not be
a police assult, it would be an arrest operation.
You seem worried about this, even though it's only fiction.
I was inspired by the works of Eric Blair and Ray Bradbury.


Simon
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:22:07 GMT

eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson) writes:

>In article <1992Oct6.174303.19618@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>In article <ld3flkINN2i0@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>>Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>|> 
>>>|> 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.
>>>|> 

>Note to pro-choicers:  When someone makes a statement that says abortion
>might be valid in some circumstances, and you jump it as a defection from
>the right to life camp, and generally hit people with "you've abandoned
>your position," you encourage extremism and discourage movement and give
>and take.  I think that is a bad idea.

I don't agree, and I think you may have misunderstood the reasons
that people say such things.

The pro-choice position suffers from much maligning by the right-wing
media.  Professional whiners like Rush Limbaugh and professional
nutcases like Randall Terry are often given free rein to rant and
rave about the feminazi babykillers.  I believe that people who haven't
given much thought to the issue may actually believe that abortion
is about the desire to kill, or that pro-choice people favor abortion
as a desireable solution to all the world's ills.

When someone states that he/she recognizes that abortion may be the
least of several evils in a given situation, but despairs that it
must be used at all (i.e., doesn't like the fact that the situation
exists), I think it is only fair to point out that this is a
sentiment shared by most in the pro-choice movement.  The point
where most abortion rights advocates would differ is only if this
recognition is followed by the statement "But I still think it should
be illegal."  The phrase "pro-choice" is so tarnished in some circles
that some people will do any amount of mental gymnastics to avoid
being associated with it.  Witness Booth's emphatic backpedal when
it was pointed out that he had, indeed, expressed the fundamental
pro-choice philosophy.

                    -rocker
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:00:14 GMT

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
>An individual of a given species will, if it does not die somewhere along
>the way, eventually develop into an adult of that species.  Simple.  Not
>circular.  (Well, I suppose all definitions are ultimately circular...)

Not bad at all.  Not without a couple problems, but a surprisingly
good definition.  Does an unfertilized egg meet this definition?
If fertilized and it does not die, it will grow into an adult.  If not
fertilized it will die.  Seems to fit.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
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
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 02:41:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.011453.22272@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>>>"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
>>>-- Ronald Reagan
>>
>>Thanks for the support.   I thought for a minute the liberals had taken over
>>the net.
>
>Well, since net users are generally better educated and more
>intelligent, it only seems like the liberals have taken over.
>
"Intelligent Liberal" is an oxymoron, and a liberal is just a moron.

:)
Simon
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Liberals are but cockroaches before us!!!" -- Doktor S.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him #2
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 00:39:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.223603.4223@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.001651.23478@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct12.181224.21287@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>>I suppose that in your world, defending yourself against a police
>>>assault would also be an "assault".  How convenient.
>>>
>>Well, actually since those attacked are criminals, this would not be
>>a police assult, it would be an arrest operation.
>>You seem worried about this, even though it's only fiction.
>>I was inspired by the works of Eric Blair and Ray Bradbury.
>
>I see, the trial took place during the demonstration, before the police
>attacked (being arrested does not make one a criminal, a trial and
>guilty verdict are required.  Otherwise, my pro-life crazed mom who got
>arrested was a criminal as soon as she was arrested for demonstrating)?
>If so, the future would need an extremely efficient court system for
>that to work.
>
>Another area where you seem to be confused is that the police are not a
>tool of punishment - they arrest people whom they believe have broken a
>law and hand them over to the courts where guilt or innocence is
>determined.  After guilt is determined, the individual is handed over
>to the prison system (if there's room) for so-called "rehabilitation".
>It sounds like you think we should add another job duty to the job
>description of a police officer.  I dunno, they're already burdened as
>it is - you'll probably have to hire more police.  Where will you get
>the money?  Don't forget to factor in the loss of taxes you'll have
>when you jail (actually, in your case just kill) a large portion of
>your populance.  I suppose your future has such a pro-force response
>because they found that it was too expensive to incarcerate folks
>(i.e.  it's cheaper to kill instead of jail the guilty)?
>
Uh, wait a minute, you talk as if:
1. My fiction is fact, and
2. That somehow I am really promoting such a system.

Wrong on both counts.  This planned story is science fiction, to illustrate
the dangers of extremism.  Not a promotion of fascism.  Read my last posts.

Simon
From: kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:40:58 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct10.194752.4335@seq.uncwil.edu>, session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
> 
> Come on Ken, Clinton _did_ avoid the draft. He has never denied that. I am
> proud of him for doing it. Millions of other American males did to. Not very
> many volunteered for military service during the Vietnam war, why do you
> think they needed a draft in the first place? And yes, I can also believe
> that Clinton doesn't remember exerything that happened to him and when they
> happened over 20 years ago. I sure can't remember all of my experiance from
> that long ago.
> 
> As far as that marijuana thing, he never tried to say that he never smoked it.
> When asked a direct question on the issue, he answered it honestly and you
> conservatives won't let him live his honesty down.
> 
> -- 
> Zack Sessions
> sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
> University of North Carolina at Wilmington
> "Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."

I will try for one last time!

Draft--> Clinton said he never got a draft notice. When it was produced, 
he said he forgot. I would not call getting a draft notice a minor experience,
especially for one tryint to avoid getting one.

Marijuana--> I don't think this is a big deal. As I have said before, Gore
and also Thomas admitted to trying it and that was all. The problem with 
Clinton when he was asked, his first response was I never broke any US laws.
A slick way of avoiding the question. No he did not break any US laws, he
smoked in England.  He did not answer the question honestly the FIRST time
as you suggest, only after he was caught in a half truth.

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6975 talk.abortion:41643