HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S TAX LIST(S)
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:04:34 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Sep29.205001.11196@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:

>On the other hand, I noticed he only counted the raising of alcohol tax
>once instead of mulitiple times like in the list of Clinton's tax
>raises.

In most states it is possible to raise the tax on wine, liquor or beer
seperately.  They are seperate taxes that together are often refered to
as the alcohol tax.  Since it is possible to raise the taxes individually,
I have no problem with saying that a single bill that raises all three
simultaneously as three increases.

If Bush were to sign a law that stated that all taxes and fees charged by
the federal government were to go up by 5%, would you consider that to
be one tax increase.

BTW, the list of taxes is silly because it gives equal weight to a tax
that will bring in only a few thousand and one that might bring in millions.

The real question should be how much did the tax load go up under Clinton
versus how much it went up under Bush. (I guess we should factor in growth
in GDP and SDP as well.)
Does anyone have these numbers?

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

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: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 21:08:05 GMT


We live in a strange country, where we cry when the next Ted Bundy goes
to the electric chair, and then we turn around and say abortion is right.
A person faces execution for some heinous act, that's a tragedy, and yet
it's ok to sanction the destroying of a child who has not even been given
a chance to live.

Simon

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: draper@ais.org (Patrick Draper)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: UMCC
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:45:30 GMT

>>Remember this timely quote:
>>
>>     "If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
>>
>>BELIEVE IT!
>>-- 
>>        Ellie Cutler
>>
>>        ellie@ora.com               
>>        uunet!ora!ellie
>
>How in the hell do you know what things would be like "IF" men got 
>pregnant.  This is a weak ploy.
>
>Ted
>
>-- 
>"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."
>
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu

A co-worker of mine came up with the argument that abortion would be
out-lawed because the men in this country wanted it outlawed.

Fortuitously, the very next day in the paper, the results of a poll was
published which showed that many more WOMEN than men support the banning of
abortion.

Of course, it was MEN who were FORCING the women to say those things, so the
poll is probably meaningless.......   :-)

 
------------------////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\------------------
| Patrick Draper           Disclaimer:  I can't control my fingers,        |
| draper@umcc.ais.org                   I can't control my toes! - Ramones |
| University of Michigan Computer Club                                     |
NO CARRIER                     We are a nation of laws, not people         |
------------------\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\////////////////////------------------
From: alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:25:15 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <6425@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:

|> Gee, is that why he LIED to his draft board and ROTC unit?  A man with
|> such a "clear" conscience the country can do without.....

	Whould you care to flesh out this statement, Josh? I'd like to
know exactly what Clinton lied about to his ROTC board.

	I warn you, I've been following it pretty closely, you you'll 
actually have to provide some evidance ....

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6575 talk.abortion:40662
From: sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: The origin of individual human beings
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:24:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523

In article <1b_p5lc.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
|> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes ...
|> > kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) says:
|> >
|> >>>Certainly Brian, I look to the scientific experts and follow their
|> >>>opinion on this subject.  While it is by no means a consensus, a
|> >>>large majority of embryologists agree that human life begins at
|> >>>conception.
|> >
|> >>Human life began millions, possibly billions of years ago.  Please subscribe
|> >>to the newsgroup talk.origins for more details.
|> >
|> >I don't understand why that question always gets this answer.  I understand
|> >the point, but why not answer the -intended- question?  Is this just another
|> >semantics argument, or what?
|> 
|> Because saying that embryologists say that a human life begins at conception
|> isn't particularly useful.  It is saying that a human life is that which
|> begins at conception because a human life begins at conception.  If you're
|> just going to _define_ a human life to begin at conception, then you might
|> _define_ with just as much validity a human life to begin at birth.

	Conception is the first time that a human individual is
created, an individual who will, if not killed, eventually grow
into an adult human.  At no time prior to conception is this the
case, and at no time after.  BTW, if you have a documented
statement from a reputable embryologist who says that a human
individual is created at any time OTHER than at conception, I'd
like to see your source.  In all my time on this net so far, I
haven't seen any such thing.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
From: cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:36:32 GMT

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

>You have neglected son or daughter, which my dictionaries have as a second
>definition a male or female descendant, which I don't think excludes the
>unborn.  In any case, the definition your dictionary gives is obviously
>incomplete if you interpret it to exclude the unborn.  Have you never heard
>the phrase, "she is with child"?  It makes no sense unless "child"
>includes the unborn.

Have you ever heard the phrase "She is going to be a mother."?
It makes no sense unless the unborn are excluded from the definitions
of son, daughter, and child.

>I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce

Funny, somehow I had the impression their membership was larger.

                       -rocker
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Public Education (Was: Re: Family Leave)
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:05:37 GMT

In article <2W8QB61B@cc.swarthmore.edu> mwertz1@cc.swarthmore.edu (Melanie Wertz) writes:
>Mike Best:

yo.

>Have you actually READ Bush's "America 2000" proposal?  

Since you've called me out on the floor... no I have not read this 
proposal but I was not responding to it.  I was responding to your 
claim that school vouchers/choice would be devastating to inner
city schools.  We seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot because
I thought I was talking about the voucher system and you were talking
about the larger proposal by Bush.  

I just do not agree that under the voucher system that we as a society
would allow certain areas to fester - we are not that callous.  I believe
that vouchers would add the element of accountability to an institution
which (IMO) could use it.  Whenever one speaks of accountability by use
of vouchers or even in the evaluation of a teacher's abilities one becomes
a target of attack for merely suggesting it.  Perhaps those in control
fear the loss of control.

>If so, please show me where the policy does ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to keep
>inner-city schools from sinking, as you claim.  

If it includes vouchers then explain to me why inner city schools are
adversely effected.  I am going to try to find a book my brother told
me of called "Reinventing Government" which describes a program used
in Harlem NY similar to the voucher system and which was highly 
successful.  I am afraid that I will need to order the book though.

>If you haven't read it, then perhaps you should before you act as its
>advocate on the net.  

Again, I was not attempting to advocate all of the America 2000 proposal,
just your claims of devastation - if this is out of context in your
opinion then take a deep breath, let your blood pressure drop, and
accept my apologies.  I do not wish to make people angry but I do wish
to promote the truth.

Mike Best

PS.  I didn't use the word "average" anywhere this time, even colloquially!
From: bparrish@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (William Parrish)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:14:07 GMT
Subject: Re: The not-so-hidden agenda (Was Re: rights and responsibilities)
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

>Douglas Meier) writes:
>
>1.	I don't know anyone who is pro-abort, only pro-choice.
>
>2.	Pro-choice clinics offer adoption counseling and services to
>	pregant women.
>

My experience on this is rather limited, but I believe reveals one of the
problems here.  We adopted about 3 years ago, and the ob who did the
delivery was NOT AWARE that it was possible to arrange an open adoption.
His comment was that "This is great!   I now know an option for these problem
pregnancies."  

His viewpoint, remember, is medical... and an adoption is not a medical
procedure.  He was actually GLAD to hear that open adoptions were possible,
giving a CHOICE in a problem pregnancy.  This was at UC Davis Medical
Center.  This was an MD in the public health system, remember... not
just an abortion clinic.   

The only other experience I have here deals with a girl who stayed
with us during her "problem" pregnancy (parents didn't want her
at home... but today dote over their granddaughter).. When this
girl went into one of the clinics in San Jose California, she
wanted to ascertain how far along she was in the pregnancy, and
went into a clinic offerring the free pregnancy test.  The attitude
of the people in there was "if you don't want an abortion, what
are you doing here?".  

I know of NO adoptions which have come about due to adoption
counseling at an abortion clinic.    

>3.	The adoption market is limited to healthy, white, infants.
>

I know of one family who has adopted a number of crack
babies.  I know of one oriental, and one Palestinian baby which
has been adopted by white families in our church.  Also, at least
in California, Social Services is very relucatant to place non-white
babies in white homes for some reason... not politically correct?

>4.	I haven't heard one pro-life demonstrator stand up and say "I
>	have adopted a special needs (or race) child."
>

I have never heard of a pro-abortion demonstrator offering to take
a girl into their home to allow a pregnancy to go to term either.
 

usual disclaimer.

Bill Parrish (bparrish@hprpcd.rose.hp.com)






Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 12:55:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <exuptr.709.717642845@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:

>Zeroing the deficit does not get rid of the debt, it just stops the 
>debt from getting bigger.

   This isn't true.  Part of the budget is payments on current debt,
   so a balanced budget would still be paying down debt, and over time 
   the national debt would be paid off.    A "balanced budget" simply
   means that your revenues match your disbursements.   That some of
   those disbursements are for exiting debt is immaterial.


---peter



Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6213 alt.politics.bush:7193 alt.politics.clinton:7820 alt.politics.elections:14667 alt.sex:31348 talk.politics.misc:48628 talk.abortion:39456
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Tax #48 from NYT article
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:44:19 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <5644@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

[From my discussion about tax #48 in NYT piece]
.>=> From enumeration of Bill Clinton's "taxes":
.>=> "1987
.>=> 48. Act 144 authorized the levying of an annual license fee of $500 for
.>=> each abortion clinic."
.>=> 
.>=> Raises a few eyebrows, huh?
.>
.>Well I was hoping you would be able to think about what could be a
.>financial/fiscal convienience of being pro-choice with respect to the
.>government. Having the government somehow profit from the exploitation
.>of women and "murder" of babies doesn't make me feel very comfortable.
.
.The government profits from the sale of substances which can cause
.cirrhosis (sp?) of the liver and lung cancer which can cause death in
.real human beings.  Does this bother you?  Note also that taxation is a
.tool which can be used to get less of something undesirable (that's the
.ostensible raison d'etre for the tobacco and liquor taxes - they're sin
.taxes, alledgedly the gov't has some sort of interest in stamping out
.sin (that's why we also subsidise tobacco farmers, go figure)).  What
.was that quote from a Supreme Court decision?  "The power to tax is the
.power to destroy?"  Apply this reasoning to the income tax at your own
.risk.

Gee, I'm glad you brought that up. The tax on cigarettes and alcohol do
bother me a bit that somehow the country is profiting on the dependence
of part of the population to some drug. On the other hand these taxes
aren't levied by people who advocate that cigarette smoking or alcohol
consumption is and should remain a constitutionally protected right
against those "health-freaks" who prefer every tobacco factory or
alcohol distillery go straight to hell. Usually these sin taxes are used
to pay for advertising and health programs that encourage breaking the 
dependence on these substances.

I don't think this is the case with the abortion debate. If a "tax" or
"fee" on an abortion clinic is imposed, where is the money going? I
don't hear too many pro-choice people saying it should go to funding ads
that describe how bad it is to get an abortion. At least not the
leadership. That was one thought I had when I saw this "tax."
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
Living proof of Dan Quayle's statement: what a waste it is to lose one's
mind or not to have a mind at all. How true it is.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:23:43 GMT

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>social security number as your tax payer ID?  Did you know that it is
>against the Social Security Act to use the SSN for identification purposes?

Rule #1 when citing a law: make sure subsequent laws have not modified it.
Congress *EXPLICITLY* authorized the IRS to use the SSN as the taxpayer
ID number.  You might find it worthwhile to read "Your Right To Privacy"
from the ACLU.  The chapter on SSN covers this (and other common uses,
such as using SSN for a driver's license number).

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6617 alt.activism.d:3564 alt.politics.elections:15292 alt.politics.bush:7840 alt.politics.clinton:8633 talk.politics.misc:49731 talk.abortion:40782
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:28:36 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

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.
|> 
|> Simon

That is all pro-choice advocates are saying.  Thank you for joining.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Are Republicans Evil? (yes they are!)
Date: 3 Oct 92 18:45:14 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman) writes:
-best@anazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
->Gag! Lance, you have really misrepresented Republicans by implying that 
->they don't believe in "Liberty and Justice for ALL".  It is more correct
->to describe of Republicans (than Democrats) that they believe in an
->_impartial_ society where the law is blind to the ethnicity/religion/etc
->of the _individual.  Take into account the reluctance by Republicans to
->endorse employment quotas based on race and contrast that to the Democrats.
->The Republicans believe that individuals have rights, not groups. 
-
-They didn't seem to mind Jim Crow laws or exploiting race hatred.

Excuse me, but when were Jim Crow laws established? Oh, shortly after
Reconstruction. What was the party in office in the Southern states that
passed such laws? <Democrats>

How easy we forget that P.B.S. Pinchback (during reconstruction) was a
black lieutenant governor of Louisiana. And he was a Republican.

->The Democrats, on the other hand, believe fully in group rights
->(Homosexual, Women, Blacks, and so on).  The Founders were unquestionably
->of the opinion that they were describing INDIVIDUAL rights.  The Democrats
->are trying to use "group rights" to achieve their goal to make us all 
->equal in the end (yuck).  In this regard they are out of step with the
->thinking of the Founders.  Group rights make some people more equal than
->others, it makes one think that because one is a woman that their rights
->are more important than someone else who is NOT a member of that group.
->
-
-What the hell are you talking about?

I think he's talking about how the Democrats seem to be in favor of
privileges for groups of Americans to the detriment of other more
predominant groups (i.e., WASPs). How they will accuse Republicans of
being racists for not being in approval of the Democrats' Civil Rights
Bills, of being sexists for approving Clarence Thomas to the Supreme
Court or not allowing women in combat or family leave, of being
homophobes because they don't approve of the spending levels that the
Democrats want for AIDS research even though this country has put AIDS
as the number 1 disease for research grants, etc. Basically, if you
disagree with Democrats, you don't Care about anyone else but yourself.
That's what I think he's talking about.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: rovero@java.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:38:47 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

On the other hand, the first thing leftist protesters do when they take
over a university admin building is start negotiating for amnesty for
all the participants.

Guess they expect not to go to jail?

-- 
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   |
From: mlbruce@husc8.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: a Misogynist Boor?
Date: 29 Sep 92 03:22:02 GMT
Distribution: usa

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>	Is Rush Limbaugh a misogynist boor? I think that the answer is
>yes, after inventing the term "feminazi" (I thought only liberals used
>"Nazi" as a dirty word) and claiming in one of his "undisputable
>truths" that feminism is just a movement to help unattractive women
>get ahead. I comment this because I'm not sure he would enjoy being
>called a fat redneck.

>	I especially had in mind his comment after Madonna's Florida
>house was wrecked by Hurricane Andrew. It was that the hurricane was
>just another of the men in her life who "had her, and then who dumped
>her" (or something like that). This gleeful snickering that she had
>supposedly been abused by yet another man seems awfully misogynist to
>me.

	How in the world can it be misogynist to satire an individual woman,
particularly one as far removed from normal life as Madonna? Considering the
contents of her videos, in particular "Truth or Dare", the subject of twisted
romance and the effects thereof is particularly germaine to the life of this
marketing icon, particularly when something so ironic happens. While it
may be true that many inequities and hardships exist for women, being so
uptight as to miss the humor in episodes like this is only counterproductive.
	Also, for your information, the term Feminazi can truthfully refer to
only about 25-30 people (mostly women) on the face of the Earth. The ideas and
actions of the Gloria Steinems, Jill Irelands and Pat Schroeders of the world,
as documented on Rush's show, certainly justify the term, which Rush did NOT
come up with simply to engage in name-calling. And while the Undeniable Truth
seems to be extreme (see, even Dittoheads only agree about 90-95% of the time
:) ), one look at some of the extremists of the world (keep in mind also that
there is a big difference between what most people call feminism and the far-
Left agenda that now passes for "feminism"; most of Rush's comments
pertain to this particular philosophical perversion) of Feminazi ideology may
come close to justifying Rush's claim.