HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Followup-To: talk.abortion 
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: You expect me to mark my deletions?  Dream on... 
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 01:03:40 GMT

[***SIMON*** WOULD YOU PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO TALK.ABORTION AND STOP CROSS-
POSTING THIS STUFF FROM HERE TO ETERNITY???]

[Note: Followups set to talk.abortion]

In article <1992Oct9.204843.20175@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>There have been discussions about the possiblility that a fetus does show
>brainwave activity.  This would make a fetus a living child, and thus make
>abortion the killing of that child.

Ah, so you feel abortion should be allowed until ~24 weeks into the pregnancy.

Welcome to the pro-choice camp, Simon.
--
=kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu | B(0-4) c- d- e++ f- g++ k(+) m r(-) s++(+) t | TSAKC=
=My thoughts, my posts, my ideas, my responsibility, my beer, my pizza.  OK???=
=So tell me something, Kevin.  When are you planning on sending Lefty a "bill"=
=for your archiving services?  Myself and several other people want to know!!!=
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: luhmanjp@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu (Joe Luhman)
Subject: Re: The Limbaugh Poll
Organization: University of Minnesota - Morris
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:05:13 GMT

> In article <1992Oct10.194904.4504@seq.uncwil.edu>, session@seq.uncwil.edu  
(Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> > On the contrary, it is not amazing at all, considering the average  
dittohead
> > who listens to Limbaugh. Any poll taken by Limbaugh is going to be  
guarenteed
> > to have margin of error of 90%.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Zack Sessions

This poll was never purported to be a poll about the desires of the American  
people as a whole.  It is only a sample of those who listen to the show and  
cared enough to call in.  It does not have an error of 90%, it is not a  
scientific poll at all, and therefore cannot have a measure of 'error'.  Take  
some statistics classes at your local institution of higher education to learn  
what a poll like this really means.  Then listen to the show and realize that  
the poll was never passed off to mean more than it really does.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Joe Luhman    |  luhmanjp@cab.mrs.umn.edu                        |
| U of MN-Morris|  luhmanjp@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu(NeXt Mail        |
| UMM # 243     |   (612)324-2566                                  |
| Morris,MN     | "If you dont like what you see here,get the funk |
| 56267         |  out...you can always leave the country"-Extreme |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Subject: Re: Bush Deserves to Lose, and Other Thoughts
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:49:23 GMT

>The final straw for me was a comment that Bush made over the
>weekend:  " I think it is wrong - just plain wrong - to demonstrate against
>your country when your country is at war. "  He has since appended "..in
>a foreign land. " WStill, the first statement stands.  How contemptuous of
>our liberties! 	I am impatient with demagoguery, and this simply goes too
>far.  Not only is Bush a poor leader,  but he is a poor guardian of the
>Constitution.
>	My father believes that Clinton would be a better President than Bush.
>I'm not sure.  I am opposed to his apparent rejection of low-tax models, of
>his potential judicial appointments.  I wonder how much larger the federal
>government would get under Clinton.
>	Perhaps he would be refreshing.  Reagan turned the economy around
>has lost my vote.
C'mon who are ya kidding.  You never intended to vote for the president in t
the first place.  The most glaring inconsistency in your article was that the
president appended "in a foreign land" in his statement on the Larry King s
show.  Sorry to tell you this but I was there.  There was no later appendage
of that phrase.  Trust in a persons character is of primary importance.  The f
fact is that Clinton never tells the same story twice.  As to potential
judicial appointments, I'm not ready to have Ted Kennedy passing judgement
on who gets appointed to the Supreme Court.  Further I'm not ready for ja
jutisce Cuomo.  And as far as principle is conccerned, if there is a deep
seated place for principle in the Democratic party why then do they go
out of there way to claim to be moderates if liberalism is the way to go.
Seems to me that since they can't win using liberal themes they'll say
whatever it takes.  I call this ideological prostitution.
>
>
>
>Andrew Aiken
>
>
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious rights and responsibilities
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:38:25 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

bthomas@perdita.gac.edu (Barbara L Thomas) writes:

> If you were trying to be offensive, you succeeded - so was the settlement  
> of the colonies.  If you want to have an intelligent debate of a subject,  
> please, be logical not "witty."

Wit and logic are not mutually exclusive. Brothers and sisters, can't we
find out what these simple words mean before we use them to destroy
whole sentences?

John
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: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:43:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.135526.29243@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.075103.1222@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>
>>Perhaps I am the challenger here, but there must be others that feel the same
>>way I do.   I cannot accept that I am the only person who belives that the
>>unborn have a right to live.
>
>You're not the only one - I agree with you... *they* just try and make you
>feel that way - which is pretty easy to do here on Usenet and in liberal-
>media-land.  Don't get discouraged.
>-Paul
>--
>---

Thanks for the support.  And I will keep up the debat
will accept the notion that a fetus is not a child.

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 04:41:13 GMT

In article <=rxzjrq@rpi.edu> cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>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.
>
>  **Good discussion of RTL extremists deleted**

I think the point I am trying to make is more about *tone* than about
content.  It is impossible to create movement with the tone of some
exchanges.

Of course, with the Limbaughs and Terrys of the world, tone is irrelevent,
so flame away with my blessings!



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: dsh@odin.uucp (Doug Holtsinger)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: North Carolina State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 19:01:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.172132.132292@watson.ibm.com> 
margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:

>stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>> I was responding to someone who said the Republican Party was a fringe
>> group because of (or was it "on") their position on abortion.  I simply
>> pointed out that the Democratic Party is a "fringe" group in exactly the
>> same sense, and they are.

> The Democratic
> Party supports the Freedom of Choice Act and Roe v. Wade, which allows the
> states to decide whether or not they want to restrict third-trimester
> abortions.  

Roe v. Wade and the FOCA do not allow the states to prohibit third  
trimester abortions which are necessary for ``health'' reasons, where
the term ``health'' includes the woman's emotional and psychological 
health.  Thus, Roe v. Wade and the FOCA are essentially unrestricted 
abortion-on-demand throughout the term of pregnancy.  

The Democratic party's support for unrestricted abortion-on-demand is  
a minority-held position among Americans.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: long@next3.acme.ucf.edu (Richard Long)
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Organization: University of Central Florida
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:53:30 GMT

In article <Oct09.004203.62004@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>  
sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.220014.12849@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray  
Fischer) writes:
> |> 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.
> 

But we are not yet done.  The fertilized egg then divides into two, then  
four, then eight, etc.  If the cells remain in physical contact, they will  
develop into a single individual human and eventually into an adult.   
However, if one cell breaks off before it has a chance to differentiate  
into a more specialized  cell, it too will develop into another individual  
human.  This happens all the time in the formation of identical twins.  If  
that cell had not physically separated from the others, it is possible  
that that cell and all of its progeny would have formed part of the  
placenta and not any part of the individual adult human.  (With the risk  
of stating the obvious, the placenta is always discarded and does not  
become part of a human adult).  Dead placenta or living adult human--only  
chance and environment determines the fate any individual cell and its  
progeny.  Thus, your definition does not apply in this case.  

It is my belief that all such simple definitions of an individual  
(although yours was admittedly a very good attempt) are doomed to  
contradiction.  Life is based on the cell and cares little for the  
individual cell mass, be it human or otherwise.  In the grand scheme of  
Life, we individual human beings appear to be little more than expendable  
scaffolding for the production of the next generation, which is mere  
scaffolding for the next, and so on.  

My warning is--do not look to biology for a moral code, you will not like  
what you find.

--
Richard Long
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5026, FAX: (407)658-5059
long@acme.ucf.edu
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush gets nailed on Columbus
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:38:02 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ILS

Hey notice that the Rush summary did not contain any information about
this.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:07:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.210535.22592@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
>-- Ronald Reagan
Similarly adoption and abstinence. How unsurprising to see such
vacuity from Reagan.
-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Reasonable men may differ: Capital Gains Tax
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:01:30 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.023521.22821@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
> I'm curious as to the Democrats opposing a cut in the capital gains tax.
> Being conservative, I support the cut. I have *never* received a substantive
> answer why it shouldn't be cut. Here's what I know of both sides:
> 
...
> I wrote my Congressman, Dave McCurdy (D-OK), encouraging him to support
> the bill to lower the tax. He promptly wrote me back, telling me he would
> vote against the move. Here is the main paragraph from his letter:
> 
> 	   I voted against the capital gains cut proposed by the Bush
> 	Administration during the last Congress, primarily because it
> 	would have increased the federal deficit over five years by
> 	$21 billion. While some middle income taxpayers might have
> 	benefited, by far the greatest benefits would have gone to the
> 	wealthiest among us. At a time when the deficit is threatening
> 	to undermine our whole economic system, not only for us but for
> 	our children, I did not believe it was appropriate to cut taxes
> 	in this way.
> 
> He then goes on about supporting tax cuts for middle income Americans,
> and talks some more about the deficit.
> 
> I wrote him back, asking him to explain why he opposed the cut if that
> has a good track record of stimulating the economy. I invited him to
> supply me with figures of his own.

	Feel free to mail the following to your congressman:

	Year:	Revenue from cap gains (millions):
	1977	$8,104
	1978	$9,104
	1979	$11,669
	1980	$12,459
	1981	$12,684
	1982	$12,900
	1983	$18,500
	1984	$21,800
	1985	$26,500
	1986	$49,700 (cap gains tax increase passes this year)
	1987	$32,900
	1988	$38,900
	1989	$36,020

	1990 should be out now, but I haven't been able to locate it.  Note
also that from the 70s-1986 was a period of continual lowering tax rates for
capital gains.
	_The Seven Fat Years_ has from 1960-75, which also show a steady
improvement in revenues for tax cut years.

	When are they gonna learn?  It would be even better if they would index
cap gains taxes for inflation.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
	<1992Oct6.222643.17181@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
	<1992Oct7.165702.18719@nwnexus.WA.COM>
	<1992Oct8.211540.23545@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:12:45 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.211540.23545@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) foams:
>"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
>-- Ronald Reagan

	It should be noted that Mr. Reagan signed into law a bill legalizing abortion 
while governor of California.

	-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
From: rovero@wake.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Republican campaign ad suggestion
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:00:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

Great post!  Imagination 9.8; Humor 9.8; un-PC 10.0.

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6750 alt.politics.bush:8023 alt.politics.elections:15462 talk.politics.misc:50019 alt.politics.clinton:8867
From: tem1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush: Buffoon
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:26:36 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

rdosser@utkux1.utk.edu (rdosser) writes:

>I tuned in to Rush Limbaugh for the first time this afternoon. In ten
>minutes, I heard four straw men set up and knocked down, a hideous
>racial slur and a fat buffoon giggling to himself. 
>This is the conservative version of a thinking man?

>*********************************************************************
>Your intellect is truly dizzying.

>Wesley, in "The Princess Bride"
>*********************************************************************

The general rule of thumb is that one cannot truly understand the show
unless you listen for a least 6 weeks.  Granted, when I first tuned in,
the show seemed kinda bizarre.  However, now, the show is entertaining
and quite informative.  Rush has provided the info I have needed to back
my suspicions that I could never prove before.

By the way, has anyone ever asked Rush why he hasn't run for President?
:)

Tim Miller

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Miller		     |  "The only thing we have to fear, is fear     |
   tem1@Ra.MsState.Edu	     |    itself"				     |
			     | "Within each of us lies the power of our      |
Mississippi State University |  consent to health and to sickness, to riches |
Major:  Chemistry/Physics    |  and to poverty, to freedom and to slavery.   |
Minor:  Mathematics	     |  It is we who control these, and not another" |
			     |      ---Illusions, by Richard Bach	     |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:44:32 GMT

<1992Oct12.023740.7589@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
><1992Oct11.005152.18738@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>><1992Oct2.042310.4735@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.
>>>
>>>Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
>>>moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??
>>
>>Trees move in the wind.  Bacon moves when it sizzles.  Fires moves as its
>>fuel is consumed.
>>
>Get serious, please.  You know fully well what I was talking about.

In truth, I did not know what you menat *exactly* by your statement.  It
seemed fairly sophmoric to me, but I resist "filling in the blanks" for
people as much as possible to avoid misunderstandings.  You seemed to be
saying that something that moves about has the attribute of awareness.  I
merely gave you some simple examples to refute this assertion.

If you had some other reason for linking movement and awareness please
elucidate.

>Unless the truth makes you uncomfortable.....                :)

Well we hear it so infrequently in this group...


Gordon
Pro-abortion, Pro-person, Pro-women's-rights and ex-boytoy of Susan, Muriel, 
Cathi, Nora, Jennifer, Sarah, Lynn, Diana (catwoman), Diana (Sorceress), and
Beth and married to a goddess among women, and proud of it.
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Date: 14 Oct 1992 21:56:34 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

In article <98654@bu.edu>, tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:
|> Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.
|> Most people have trouble believing Clinton (indeed, it's the cover story 
|> of this week's Time Magazine) and Dan kept hammering the issue.  "Do you really
|> trust Clinton to be President?"  I think most would answer "no".  And he and
|> the Admiral had Gore running away from his book on the environment (supposedly
|> his strong point), making him look like an extremist.  yeah, he exaggerated
|> with the facts, but so did Gore.  Gore looked so stiff.  How many times did
|> you hear "Bill Clinton and I think ...." at the beginning of a sentence?
|> 
|> This is NOT to say that Quayle is a good VP or that Bush is a good president.
|> But reading the papers today, you have to believe that either 1) they watched
|> a different debate, or 2) they are biased.  I mean, it wasn't even close.

Obviously you watched a different debate.  Dan ducked questions and hammered
at the "who do you trust theme," Al answered questions and asked about the
Bush record, and the Admiral had the best seat of any spectator in the house.

Actually, I have no more trouble believing Clinton than I do Bush.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.