HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 28 Jan 1993 12:20:47 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <markp.728246984@joplin.wri.com> markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs) writes:
>I'm sure I speak for most pro-lifers when I say that if we didn't think
>abortion was murder, we would support women's right to abortion. The
>REAL "hard question" here is: Does abortion unjustly take the life of human 
>persons? 

And the answer is "no", Mark.


Get used to that, too.

Adrienne Regard
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13467 talk.politics.misc:69186
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Why are conservatives so stupid ?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:32:04 GMT
Keywords: liberals, conservatives, intellegence

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>    Sorry to break this to you but the term Dittohead was not invented by 
>liberals. Some of what Rush says *is* drivel, and highly inconsistent 
>drivel to at that. At one point I can recall Rush speaking disparagingly 
>of the theory of Evolution saying that he couldn't accept that humanity 
>could have happened by accident, and yet in other instances I've heard 

     I don't except that humanity occured purely by accident either; however,
I do believe in Evolution.  These two may seem contradictory, but they are
not.  There was an article in Time several months back about God and science,
and in this article they quoted biologist who see that intelligent life was
predestoned to evolve.  The arguement is that the more scientist look at 
nature the more they see things that could be explained by 'God'.  It was
an excellent article and is worth reading.  [  Note : this is not a bash 
against science, I am a PhD candidate in engineering ]


>    Essentially, when the "scientific facts" appear to support Rush, Rush 
>supports the "facts", but when those "facts" appear to disprove his position 
>he ridicules them and their originators.

   Scientific facts are hard to come by, particulary in such expansive fields
as the environment and Evolution.  Things which you except as 'facts' may 
actually only be theories.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 01:40:21 GMT

In article <1k7cohINNqu3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.173349.23024@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>Hmm...That's not what I'm concerned about, really. I'm concerned about
>>the logical problems that this brings up. Consider: If, as I say,
>>having to register for the draft makes you less than a person,
>>then men are made less than people. If women are denied their
>>reproductive rights and made less than people, then I don't quite
>>see what you're using as a benchmark for what a person is. You see
>>what I'm trying to say? I know the argument isn't very clear, but
>>I hope it's clear enough. IF not, I'll try to clarify.
>What, that by definition everybody is then 
>'less than a human?'  Is that what you mean to say?
Yes, pretty much. May not be a very good point, but that's what it
is.

>Not that I figure a term of slavery is a good idea or anything.  But it frankly
>doesn't make any more sense to me that the government could force men to 
>fight for their country against their will (though there is the 'out' for a
>conscientious objector) than forcing women to bear children.  If the country,
>or the society, is so sick that people who share it with others are unwilling
>to fight/bear children, then the country/society is too sick to survive, and
>should be allowed to die.
I certainly agree with this.

> Which is to say, in a 'moral' universe (yep, that's
>flamebait, folks) pure self interest would function to create and maintain
>nations if and only if nations were a useful social construct.  Ditto birthing.
>Therefore, personal choice is the motor behind all social interaction.
I don't quite see that you have addressed my point. Do you think
you have? If so, perhaps you can explain more clearly.

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Hillary (Was: What can we expect....)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:54:48 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

 >starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

  >>Now she is comming above ground with an office in the White House

 >Funny, I don't recall any fuss about Mrs. Bush's office in the 
 >White House.  (The one in which she ghost wrote Millie's book.)

Well, I don't recall that Ms. Bush was given the same level of power
that Ms. Clinton has either.  Influence?  Sure.  What president's
spouse -- or any spouse for that matter -- doesn't influence his/her
mate?

Anyway I don't see what the fuss is either, but not for the reason you
state.  Governor Clinton said from the beginning that a vote for him
was a vote for her.  That was clearly acceptable to enough voters to
put the two of them in the oval office.

|===========================================================================|
|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        |
|===========================================================================|
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Good Week
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:03:54 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

If you're a homosexual illegal alien who would like to get a free abortion
in a military hospital, this is a pretty good week so far.

|===========================================================================|
|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:13826 talk.politics.misc:69763
From: sunder@grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu (Srinivas Sunder)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Trivial" Felonies (Was: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!)
Date: 25 Jan 1993 23:12:09 GMT
Organization: Center for Reliable and High-Performance Computing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: grusin.crhc.uiuc.edu

In article <1993Jan25.215040.1073@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
|> What I find interesting is that this appointment was supposed to be ground
|> breaking in that Baird would have been the first woman in the AG role. She
|> was a good example of a woman balancing her career and family life. So
|> what do they "get" her on? Her means of procuring child care so that she
|> could further her career. I don't consider this a coincidence. The so-called
|> family values types have always looked askance at daycare as an enabler of
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The people who first came out against Zoe: Hank Brown (R-CO, pro-abortion rights),
Alan Simpson (R-WY, pro-a.r.), Larry Pressler (R-SD, position on abortion not
known to me), 3 DLC Democrats who are pro-life (I think) but strong backers of
Clinton, Sen. Nancy Kassebaum (R-KA, pro-a.r.), Rep. Marge Roukema (R-NY(or NJ?),
pro-a.r.), ex-Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX, pro-a.r.). 

Add to the list Sen. Joe Biden, who had Zoe Baird almost in tears TWICE before
she even got to the hearing room (see TIME), and had to threaten to go public
with his opposition to Baird if the yuppies and their kids around Clinton didn't
put him through to Clinton.

The single, lone pro(e)-Zoe Senator was Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT, pro-life).

I can't see the family-values forces all who lined up against her. Can you?

|> "the breakup of the American family," i.e., it allows mothers to compete
|> in the workplace. I attribute the flap about her daycare to the same cause
|> as the railing about Clinton's "draft dodging," pot smoking, whatever: it's
|> the death rattle of the old order as it's fading from power. The
|> hippie/yuppie/whatever-diminutive-you-like generation is here: get used
|> to it. :-)

On the other hand, it MIGHT just be the class-envy that Bill Clinton and George
Mitchell played up so skillfully to win votes, coming back and biting them in
the rear end. Serves him right.


-- 
Srinivas Sunder                                         sunder@crhc.uiuc.edu

If my employer shares these views, I'd be most surprised.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13691 alt.rush-limbaugh:15031 alt.politics.clinton:21097
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 03:48:49 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The "Liberal Media" Criticizes Clinton
 <3w0qXB4w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com>
 <1993Jan22.212832.18977@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>

In article <1993Jan22.212832.18977@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) says:

>> Clinton walks looks like a pig, runs like a hippo and brays like an ass.
>> So, what the hell is he?

>Your twin brother?

I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say about me bounces off & sticks to you.

...sheesh...
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Supposed Bentsen Quote
Keywords: 4 names
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:58:42 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

Today Rush played (twice at least) what he claimed was the recorded voice
of an interview with Senator Lloyd Bentsen, now Secretary of the Treasury.
In this supposed recording, a voice said something on the order of
"Those middle class voters will fall for a lie about tax cuts every time."

Was this really Bentsen's voice, and did he really say this to mean
this, or was it taken out of context?  (i.e. Did Bentsen really
say something like "[The republicans believe that] those middle class..."?)

Prepared to be aghast, but I've been lied to with misquotes before...
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14139 talk.politics.misc:70486 talk.abortion:58512
From: ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Speaking of Legal Personality
Date: 27 Jan 93 23:03:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Computing Services, UC Davis

In article <1993Jan25.073851.17560@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>Minor Point here: but corporations are legal persons,
>does this mean that "Corporate Raiders" are actually
>LIABLE FOR MURDER when they gut and run?
>
>Just wanted to see how we are going to handle
>the matter of dealing with 'legal person.'

Yes, isn't it interesting that you can be sued for slandering a corporation!

Dan
deherrin@ucdavis.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14052 talk.abortion:58372
From: gjh2j@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Im a Joker Im a Smoker Im a Midnight Toker)
Subject: What's been broken
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 10:57:30 GMT

Would someone please coninue to post the ppromises that have been broken
and the date they were broken...I know #18 is out the window.....

What else is there?

Ones that should be (tell Rush if he already hasn't) #33, #37, #39

Ones to watch: #10,#15,,#16,#40,and of course #50



Jeff Hawkins
"Well then, if you do not want death, how about a rubber chicken"
-The Muppet version of Ingmar Bergmann's "Silent Strawberries" (I think
 that's the title)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,uiuc.politics
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: How much does your congressman know about you?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 02:39:28 GMT

awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
>-Congressional offices maitain detailed computer profiles of EVERY voter in 
>-their district.  The names are cross-listed against voter registration
>-records for age, sex, party affiliation.  They are also listed against
>-drivers license records for ethnic background.  Finally, they link up with
>-church, business, and civic lists to find out religous beliefs, occupation,
>-and political opinions.
>-Your congressman has such good files on you that have been called "top-
>-notch counterintelligence files".

>Nah, nothing top-notch about this.  It's basic stuff that's available
>to anyone who wants to get it.  I'm happy about the fact that
>congresspeople are interested in their constituents' backgrounds and
>beliefs.  That's what representation is all about!


     Your congressman will be glad to see that his efforts are working.
Well, on you atleast.  The only reason that your representitive has such
good files on you is so that they can win re-election ( the only thing
most congressmen really care about ).  The records are used to target 
specific mailing to you.  This mailings are the key tool in winning re-election,
and they are done in a dubouis manner.  Whatever is important to you, as
determined by your backgound, will be highlighted in the mailings you receive.

   It is not a genuine concern for 'constituents' backgrounds and
 beliefs' which drives the file keeping and mailing, but a desire to stay
in office for as long as they wish to be there.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: lloyd@ll.mit.edu (Brad Polant)
Subject: Re: Ron Brown at it again
Keywords: DNC, dinner, companies
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington MA
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 13:51:36 GMT

In article <C0yIwE.5y5@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
|> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <C0tMAv.Mr4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
|> >>
|> >>  Looks like Mr. Brown is at it again.  He was going to have a dinner for
|> >>American companies, but was caught by LA Times.  The catch is that each
|> >>company was to shell out $10,000 a plate for the DNC dinner.  The biggest
|> >>sham is that they still won't admit they got caught with their pants down on 
|> >>this one.  Come on boys, fess up, it was a pay-off.
|> 
|> >As I understand it, the dinner was schedualed BEFORE Brown was appointed.
|> >Now that he is appointed, the dinner is canceled.
|> 
|> >>
|> >>  Please don't flame back with something about previous adminstrations doing
|> >>similar things.  Prez. Bill said he was starting a new era in government.
|> >>One that had great integrity, but seems like some underlings didn't get the
|> >>message.
|> 
|> >Darn, I wish you hadn't requested that.  I was all set to respond with
|> >comments about Reagan's multi million dollar payoff from the Japanese for 
|> >keeping us at their mercy.   One interesting thing,  the Japanese didn't
|> >trust him enough to pay him before, they made him committ the acts first,
|> >and then paid him afterwards.  Pretty shrewd people.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> You're gonna have to give us some references on this one.
|> 
|> 
|> 
|> E.S.

If I recall, and I do. Reagan was payed 4 million by fuji corporation to make one speech in japan to a japanese audience.  The speech was to a corperate only audience, and was within a few months (if not weeks) of leaving office.  Check your local paper archive for more details.  I remeber the event clearly, as it ment the begining of the end of my republicanism.
Brad Polant
|> 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Promises, Promises
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:14:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.194326.27962@news.nd.edu> fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck) writes:
>Meanwhile, of course, no reasonable person expected or
>expects Clinton to be so totally locked into the promises
>he made as a candidate to prevent him from exercising
>sound judgement.  We can fully expect Clinton to "pull
>a George Bush" by breaking a few key promises, and
>I'm glad he will have the courage to do so, despite
>the naysayers and negativists.

My fear is not that he will break most of his promises, but rather that
he will keep most of them.  Taking from each according to his abilities
and giving to each according to his needs is fundamental to Mr.
Clinton's philosophy.  It was also fundamental to other social orders
that fell apart when those trying to impose them realized that they 
didn't work in real life.  Earlier this week, Mr. Rogers (of neighborhood
fame) presented Mr. Clinton with a toy trolley.  Mr. Clinton's response was
something about how nice it would be if we all could live in Mr. Rogers'
neighborhood.  What most people probably didn't realize was that on the tv
show, the trolley transports everyone to the land of make believe.

|===========================================================================|
|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:14023 talk.politics.misc:70132
From: anderson@cs.uiuc.edu (Andy Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:35:02 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

In <C1ILo2.Mwn@news.rich.bnr.ca> gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson) writes:


>In article (Ted Frank) writes:

>|>Except it was never a $6 job.  It was $6 for the can, and $200+ for the
>|>environmental damage.  Just because you didn't have to directly pay for the 

>Where do you get the $200 figure?  I was unaware that some company produced the
>ozone layer and charged everyone for it, or is this another of those instant
>numbers that get thrown around and we are expected to accept as fact?

Yup, just like TF's "ten thousand generations" of increased cancer risks figure.

>gaj

Andy
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: pbowden@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Draft-Dodging Rush?
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:35:46 GMT
Organization: The Missing Link BBS, Santa Maria, CA  805-925-1129

ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:

> In article <93024.120541KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludw
> >Never mind that National Guardsmen were eligible to be sent to war.  Silly
> >little facts like that ruin an otherwise decent point, don't they?
> 
> Quayle was assigned to an administrative company that would never have been 
> called up for vietnam, as it was needed in Indiana. That he was put into that
> company (which had no slots open) rather than into another company that could
> have conceivably been called to Vietnam (like the one that had 11 slots open)
> is the basis of the argument for calling Quayle a draft-dodger.
> 
> Silly facts? Why don't you try them sometime?
> 
> Dan

Remind me and the net of a few more facts...  Was Quayle's placement into 
that company at the behest of his relatives?  For a while we were being 
told that this was the case with Clinton, but then he did sign up for 
ROTC in Arkansas--but of course he failed to show up to that and instead
left the country?  right??  and what about the requirement that you 
notify the draft board within 10 days of a change in your draft status... 
he left the country for months as I recall...  sounds alot more like
a true dodge to me...  actively writing letters to worm his way out of 
getting drafted, signing a promise to go to ROTC then not showing up and 
instead leaving the country for months, not notifying the draft board of 
the change within 10 days, returning, notifying and registering for the 
draft lottery and getting a 'high number'...  am I forgetting something??

Oh yea, something about him actually getting a draft notice and that 
being the reason for his signing up for ROTC.  Now Commander-in-Chief.

Seems to me people shouldn't be worrying about Quayle anymore... and if 
they hadn't been this whole Clinton-draft response would not have been 
necessary.

--
pete@missing.kludge.com (Pete Bowden)  {SYStem OPerator}
The Missing Link BBS, (805) 925-1129
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Deficit
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 05:44:27 GMT

Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: In article <C18sw2.A51@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
: >Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: >: 
: >: Deficit as percent of GNP doesn't tell us enough -- I wouldn't mind
: >: a high percentage, just so long as the economy is growing faster than
: >: the debt.  I'm going to use debt/GNP rather than deficit/GNP.
: >: 
: >: As percent of GNP, debt (rather than deficit) was steadily declining
: >: from Truman to Nixon, levelled under Nixon, stayed level until Reagan,
: >: and has been skyrocketing ever since.
: >
: >Why not consider debt to income ratio?  
: 
: Income is GNP.  GNP is income.  

No, income is tax (and other) revenues.  About $1.2 Trillion in 1992.
If you really take GNP into account, you need to consider public AND
private sector debt...


: -- 
: ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
: standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
: the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13557 talk.abortion:57455
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 22 Jan 1993 20:24:46 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1jh7udINNh25@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <llne4oINN99f@kara-kum.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>>>If your nose is inside the womans body, she should be free to punch it
>>>as much as she wants.
>>Okay, I'll play along with that.  But what if I had no choice whether my
>>nose was there or not?
>
>Okay, let's all play along with that.
>
>What *if* you had no choice, but your nose was in fact inside the woman's
>body.
>
>Do you *seriously* propose she should just have to put up with your nose?

Good point.  Normally I wouldn't.  And the analogy breaks down around here,
since in this case it's not just a nose, but an entire life (I note that
"life" is arguable) inside.  And assuming it is a human life, which by
sheer misfortune found itself inside a womb, it would be most unfair for
him or her to have to die in deference to another human life's right to
privacy.

I will agree with you that it is lamentable that the mother would have to
give up her right to free choice in this matter.  Were it up to me, I
would look for another alternative.

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh