HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (William M. Porter)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:22:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <37004@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
writes...

>Pat Buchanan is using his religiosu convictions to tell others how
>to behave and if they don't they are no true americans. Freedom is
>america, america is freedom he said. But what kind of freedom is
>this may I ask. A freedom limited by religious narrowmindedness, gay
>bashing, anti feminism, rascism?

What religious narrowmindedness do you find in Buchanan? What gay-bashing? What
racism? I don't ask about feminism, as I grant that Buchanan is an adversary to
feminism, at least in its radical/lib form.

I have many friends who are gay. A gay friend played the harpsichord at my
wedding.  I spent a year as a boarder in a house owned by a gay man. One of the
best teachers I ever had is gay.  My gay friends are good people. I do not
"bash" them or tolerate "bashing" when I hear it elsewhere. But I do NOT
support "gay rights" nor do I think that homosexuality is, in itself, a
recommendable life-style. I absolutely oppose granting legal recognition to
homosexual marriages, in fact, it is a legally absurd idea.

I could go through the other attitudes of Buchanan that are criticized in
similar ways. What Buchanan said is honest and courageous. We are in the midst
of a crippling attack of NICENESS in this country--have been, I think, since
the 1960s. It leads people to apologize for the rioters in LA and for Sister
Souljah and Ice-T. Niceness keeps people from pointing out to homosexuals (or
heterosexuals) whose promiscuous lifestyles may have contributed to their
contracting AIDs that perhaps they may be responsible, at least in large part,
for the trouble they have brought upon themselves.

Niceness also keeps people from looking hard and thinking hard about what
certain liberals write and say. I have read Mrs. Clinton's own words. Buchanan
did NOT misrepresent what she said.

Buchanan is indeed a traditionalist, but that doesn't make him a bigot. People
are misreading his tone--candor is so shocking!--and not reading his words at all.

William Porter  * * * Classical Languages: University of Houston
Internet: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu /or/ CompuServe: 75430,1351
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Improve your life through double speak, a Rush primer
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:58:55 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug14.165535.25836@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
->	Great! Rush twists statistics to suit his purposes, I point out
->some fairly obvious problems with his logic, and now I'm being called
->apon to prove my figures. Rush didn't offer any of the proof that you
->want from me, but you'll follow him without question. It must be true,
->because Rush said it!

 Alex, In my postings on the net, whenever somebody asked for proof I either
provided it or I stated why I couldnt. We are still waiting. Why do you com-
pare what happens on this net to what rush does on his show ???
 Mindlessness is basing your ideals on ideals you cant even substantiate.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Improve your life through double speak, a Rush primer
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:03:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.163536.14106@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <BswB7J.J03@acsu.buffalo.edu> mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt) writes:
>>	Not exactly.  He also mentioned large segments of the population 
>>that are not included in the calculations of individual incomes: the self
>>employed, government workers, retirees etc.  This makes individual income
>>an unreliable statistic, hence his use of family incomes, which are more
>>reliably calculated.
>
>	I doubt that self employed people make up "a large precentage",
>and the government is well known for paying less then the private sector.
>talking about family income ignores the point that many familes are working
>2 or 3 jobs to get that extra 5%, hardly a big plus in my book.
>

So take this one step farther.  If families are already working 2-3 jobs
to get some disposable income then how on Earth is raising taxes going
to help them?  More specifically, the character of the Democratic party
is to solve problems by raising taxes so should we put democrats in power?
Raising taxes will not only reduce their disposable income but may cause 
the loss of one of the jobs (taxes are a drag on the economy IMO).

Spare me the argument which states only the wealthy will be taxed, I find
that hard to believe.  Further, indirect effects will likely take place 
if the environmentalist and social engineering agendists take power.
Federal requirements for environmental and social purposes on buisness
will some degree of negative effect on the economy.

Yes, change is required but is the Clinton & Congress approach beneficial?  
How about a new Congress which will limit mandated spending.


Mike Best
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4519 alt.rush-limbaugh:3640
From: mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Improve your life through double speak, a Rush primer
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:11:42 GMT
Organization: UB

alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:


>	Rush slipped in a great line yesterday: He said that while most 
>people think that income has declined over the last 20 years, because
>individual incomes have dropped 19%, they are wrong. It turns out that,
>if you look at family incomes, income has gone UP by 5.4%!

>	Of course, both parents are working now and the kids are in day
>care, but things really are better - don't you know. It's a line straight 
>out of Animal Farm.

	Not exactly.  He also mentioned large segments of the population 
that are not included in the calculations of individual incomes: the self
employed, government workers, retirees etc.  This makes individual income
an unreliable statistic, hence his use of family incomes, which are more
reliably calculated.
-- 
Matt Bernhardt
University of Buffalo             THIS SPACE FOR RENT.
mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alford@alc.com (Mack Alford)
Subject: Re: Tax Fairness
Organization: Ascent Logic Corporation
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 00:20:20 GMT

In article <LARRY.92Aug15192451@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu
(Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
> I was talking about fairness in taxing, wherein the rich man, like
>the middle class man, would pay some reasonable share of taxes.

Lets get back to your original question, and let me ask the question from the
other side.  What is my "fair share" of taxes?  

The only answer I seem to be getting from even the most articulate liberal, is
"more that you are paying, you greedy bastard".  

I note that if I have the temerity to say that I would like to decide how to
either spend or invest some of the money that I have made after a lifetime of
working hard, I am called "greedy"; while if my liberal friends propose that I
pay more taxes, they are assumed to be speaking from the standpoint of the
"public interest".   Why am I being greedy when I want to decide how what I
have earned is spent, rather than some do-gooder deciding how it should be
spent??  What gives you or anyone else the right to require that when I earn
more, I should be punished by paying more proportionally??

So, please tell me,  what is "fair"?  This is not just a theoretical question
for me.  In federal and state income taxes, the  incremental tax rate for my
wife and I is now approximating 50% (i.e., for every additional dollar I earn,
income taxes take half, I get to keep half).  This does not count the sales
tax, property tax, parcel tax, use tax, utility tax, and all of the other
miscellaneous taxes I pay.  It doesn't even include the infamous FICA tax.  

So, what is your criteria for "fair"?  is there some sort of objective criteria
you can point to, or are you just claiming the right to spend as much of other
people's money as you can get to do good?  

I note that if there is no "objective criteria", then all democracy is destined
to fail, as deToqueville discussed, when "the electorate find that they can
vote themselves largess from the public treasury".  

Mack the Knife
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: davoli@natinst.com (Russell J. Davoli)
Subject: Re: Tax Fairness
Organization: National Instruments Corp.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:24:21 GMT

In article <mykes.0c8l@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>, mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug11.181719.24810@natinst.com> davoli@natinst.com (Russell J. Davoli) writes:
> > It's also unclear to me if they are counting the Social Security withholding
> > as a tax.  It might as well be, and I think we ought to be trying to find a
> > way to phase it out.  Now that 401K and IRA plans are widely available, who
> > needs the government to "save" our money for us?
> 
> 
> I am not an accountant or legally trained, but I do believe that 401K plans are
> limited to 10% of your income (a benefit to the rich, but less than FICA to
> the poor) and would hurt the less well off in the long run.  And I believe that
> IRAs are no longer tax deductions (I may be wrong about this...).

When I enrolled in the the 401K plan here, I was told that I could put up to
15% of my income in the plan.  The plan is also limited to a maximum
contribution per year (over $7000 last year) that is adjusted for inflation
every year.  As for IRAs, I think you get some deduction as long as your income
isn't above a certain level and you also aren't putting money into a 401K, but
I'd need to check the instructions that came with my 1040 to be sure about this. 

[and from earlier in the post...]
> In some respects, the FICA "tax" isn't a real tax - since people paying the
> tax get their money back with interest...  However, some of us won't be
> getting any Social Security because the fund will go broke (due to aging
> baby boomers making a run on the bank) in the first few decades of the
> 21st century.  FWIW, I KNOW I won't be getting any :)

This is why I support substituting market alternative for the Social Security
system.  For many of us young folks here on the net, SS is not going to be
there for us, so we need to start planning and saving now.  The 401K plans
and IRAs are not perfect, but I believe they are a step in the right direction.  
I'm not rich by any means, but I'm using these plans anyway.

-- Russell Davoli
   Software Engineer
   National Instruments Corp.
*****************************************************************************
I am in no way representing the views of National Instruments or anybody
else.  The information above is provided with no warranty, express or implied.
Use at your own risk.  If it gets in your eye, flush with water for 15 minutes.
Do not taunt the Happy Fun Ball.  Blah, blah, blah...
From: root@engr3.umbc.edu (Super-User)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Health care
Date: 16 Aug 92 15:05:24 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus

In article <mykes.0c5w@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.223031.4022@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
>> In article 36671@sdcc12.ucsd.edu, rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator) writes:

>The 7% across the board does not include companies who pay for alternative
>coverage.  However, that 7% IS a tax and it is gonna come out of your
>personal potential earnings and not the companies'.  Or if you are lucky,
>you will split the difference with the company and only LOSE 3.5% of your
>potential earnings.  Or the companies will simply pay 7% less salaries
>by FIRING people and making more unemployment.  Wonderful plan.

	This explanation is pretty skewed, because it ignores that money that
you already pay for health insurance. In my case, it comes to 12% of my gross
income, to purchase membership for 3 in a local HMO. My HMO is one of the
cheaper ones in the area, and a preferred provider plan or BCBS is even worse.

	What Mike ignores is that everybody with health insurance is "taxed"
for the cost, it's part of your poaycheck, but you don't see it. It's sort of
ironic to listen to this arguement, after hearing Rush rant about how tax
withholding is evil because people don't preceived that they're being taxed
if the never see the money. Health insurance is the same way: if you've got
it, then you already pay for it.

	I don't understand why business is responsible for health insurance
at all: it would seem like the best way would be for communities to pool
together and offer residents participation in a one of several plans, with
a variable co-payment for extra features. poor people could select minimal
care in an HMO with no co-payment, rich people could kick in $X a month and
opt for preferred provider. Ultimately, health costs would vary by region
instead of by employer size, and you could change jobs without changing 
doctors. Furthurmore, this seems like a very republican way to do things,
with the government acting only as a group purchaser, not a provider, and
health costs beging determined by competition between the HMOs.
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Tax Increases - A Little Truth
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:09:48 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 9L7@solbourne.com, kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>While reading article <1992Aug11.162155.20722@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, I noticed that
>acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) said the following:
> >George Bush's 1990 tax increase had 73 separate tax increases.
>As Rush would say, please remember that "George Bush's" 1990 tax increase was
>written, sponsored, and passed by your friends and mine, the Democrats in
>Congress.  Bush didn't say "let's raise taxes," he said "Fine, I'll go along
>with the Democrats to try to appease them."

Let me try some basic logic here.  If the Congress is responsible for all the
tax increases and Bush is powerless to do anything about it then what difference
does it make who is president?  Obviously, the president has no power in this
matter of taxation.  Why all the fuss over Clinton's tax promises and whatnot?

Bush is not the agent of change as he claims.  He will be a lame duck who
what makes anyone think things would be different under Clinton?

---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: the Keating 5
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

To: crisp@netcom.com,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,

  .Subject: Re: the Keating 5
  .Message-ID: <4c6mdn+.crisp@netcom.com>
  .Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 06:19:13 GMT

  .>  Cranston is out (as is Wilson, incidentally). He claims that it
  .>was prostate cancer which made him decide not to run, not the
  .>Keating 5 thing. Barbara Boxer, Bruce Hershensohn and June Genis
  .>are all vying for the incumbentless seat.
  .>
  .Yeah, and Barbara Boxer (a hard core liberal) was nearly at the top
  .of the check kiting scandal as I recall. What's more, she had some really
  .trite excuse like "she was new on the hill and everyone did it, so she did to
  .Poor Barbara, I guess Lt. Calley's men tried the same excuse and bound up in
  .the pen!

I like your analogy!  Highly a propos.  Undoubtedly, she also ran on the
presumption that she was intelligent enough to understand right from
wrong.  What do you think?

Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . If this were an actual tagline, it would be funny.
 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: A fine opporitunity for flaming liberal flameage
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 17:56:46 GMT

hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:

>  George Bush has repeatedly supported prayer in schools.  And he's not even
>a real conservative :>)  School choice just masks the real issue.  If you
>were to start a religious school based on the principles of Jerry Falwell,
>and people could get vouchers from the state to pay for it, in effect the
>state has supported religion, and the preferred religion is the one that
>gets the most vouchers.  Another school could be founded, too.  One that 
>teaches Satanism and shows pornography in addition to the regular curriculum.
>And *your* tax dollars would have to support *that* school.

>  I'm all for private schools.  Maybe your church supports them so
>disadvantaged kids can go, too.  But don't expect me to help pay for them.

Watch out, your ignorance is showing.  In case you hadn't noticed, we
all pay for the educational system as we know it today, even if our kids
go to a private school.  If your children go to a private school, you
are in effect paying twice for that education.  What many 
people are fighting for is a voucher system that gives them back their
tax money if they send their kids to a private school. If I take my kid
out of public school and get my "tuition" back from the government, you
are certainly not paying for my child's education.


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
                        
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Improve your life through double speak, a Rush primer
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:01:37 GMT


	Rush slipped in a great line yesterday: He said that while most 
people think that income has declined over the last 20 years, because
individual incomes have dropped 19%, they are wrong. It turns out that,
if you look at family incomes, income has gone UP by 5.4%!

	Of course, both parents are working now and the kids are in day
care, but things really are better - don't you know. It's a line straight 
out of Animal Farm.


-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Media Bias?????
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: usa
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:47:03 CDT


In dpage@ra (Doug Page) writes:

> Have you heard anyone in the media point out that it was Al Gore that
> introduced the W. Horton issue in the 1988 campaign.  Oops, another fact
> "forgotten".

Not "forgotten", just false.  Al Gore brought up the furlough issue.
He used or knew any names.  It was Lee Atwater and the Republican's
that used Willie Horton and Floyd Brown's "independent" campaign ad
that used Horton's picture.

Amazing how some people translate the media's failure to spread lies into
"media bias".

-- 
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
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:55:14 GMT


In a previous article, mhl@spirit.ece.cmu.edu (Mikko H. Lipasti) says:

>In article <_2gyjhm@rpi.edu> mcgead@operators.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary) writes:
>>>few words, on behalf of the 25 million unborn children destroyed since
>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>                                        no such thing
>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Actually, Webster defines "child" as an unborn or recently born person.
>Look it up!
>
>Next time, avoid revealing your ignorance by checking your dictionary
>before spewing off at the mouth.
>

Funny.....My Webster's (copywrite 1990) defines "child" as follows:

Child, n, pl. children 1. A son or daughter. 2. a young person or baby.
3. a person thought of as the product of a given place, time, influence,
ect. 4. a descendant. 5. a person inmature in judgement.

Going down through the next 6 entries (childbirth to childlike) I see
no reference to "unborn person".

Likewise, under "Person", "Human", "Man", and all dirivitives of these
words, there is no reference to "unborn person".

Oh....you must have the Pro(anything but)Life edition of Webster's....

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh