HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: EQUITY and Barbara Jordon
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 16:32:54 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Jul24.200923.26453@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>In article 13295@dg-rtp.dg.com, crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>>If we're not going to blame Carter for the things that happened while he was
>>President, then we can't blame Bush for this recession.  BTW  Why on Earth
>>is Bush so unpopular?  I'm disappointed because everything I'm for he has
>>been against.  I voted for him to reduce the size of government, it has
>>exploded during his term.  I voted for him to cut government spending, it
>>has exploded during his term.  I voted for him to reduce the burden of
>>government regulation on business, it has exploded during his term.  I voted
>>for him to hold the line on taxes, he gave us the budget agreement of '91. I'm
>>understandably disenchanted, but these are all things that the Left favors.
>>Why are they so upset?  Environmentalists have gotten the Clean Air Act and
>>the Wetlands policy.  Civil libertarians have gotten the Civil Rights Act
>>and the Handicapped Rights Act.  We've gotten an increase in the minimum
>>wage, and extensions of jobless benefits.  What do liberals expect to get
>>from Clinton that they haven't gotten from Bush?
>
>Why don't we start with straight talk.  Bush hasn't talked straight to the
>American People, ever.

Are you saying that you prefer a President who says what you want to hear, over
a President who does what you want done?  How about giving a litany of 
concrete complaints?  I'm still curious why Bush, who has been pursuing 
liberal approval for the past four years, hasn't gotten it.

>
>---
>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:	The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
It can't be won, the way the game is run
but if you choose to stay, you wind up playing anyway.

		"On the Boulevard" -- Jackson Browne

===============================================================================
"As to guaranteeing bank deposits, the minute the government starts to do that
... the  government  runs  into a  probable loss.  We  do not wish to make the 
United  States Government liable  for the  mistakes and  errors of  individual
banks, and put a premium on sound banking in the future."
                                      Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933)
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 24 Jul 92 16:50:44 CDT


In article <1992Jul24.150219.21396@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> In article <crb2.711981623@Ra.MsState.Edu> crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson) writes:
> 
> >Well, that's buying off on the liberal media's slant..I saw the show and
> >never thought that he said anything that was pro-choice.
> 
> 	Right. I forgot about the liberal media, which quoted the words
> verbatim. It looks like times roman to me, but I suppose it could be slanted
> slightly. He said:
> 
> 	KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
> 	and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
> 	it?
> 
> 	QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
> 	do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
> 
> 	KING: What would you do?
> 
> 	QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on 
> 	whatever decision she made?
> 
> 	KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
> 
> 	QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope that she wouldn't make that
> 	decision.

Heck, why can't Dan be honest and say he'd force her to bear the child by
shutting down all legal abortion clinics.

> The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
> from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal 
> abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
> 
> 	My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
> is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
> murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
> one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
> anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
> stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
> at least that far for your own kids.


-- 
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,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 23 Jul 92 21:19:18 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Jul23.170632.14292@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>	I didn't see the show, but I heard that Quayle was on Larry King,
>and someone asked hiw what he would do if his daughter got pregnant and
>wanted an abortion. His response was that he would support her "in any
>decsion that she made".
>	Sounds pretty pro-choice (and anti-family-values, as defined by
>Quayle himself) to me. Comments?
>					Alex Crain
Not that I want to defend Quayle but his response to this question
is one that every parent in america should be able to relate to:
support of your children's decisions, whether you agree with them or
not. I consider myself pro-choice but feel that abortions should be
used as little as possible. Of course I am a male and it is not my
choice... If my daughter would come to me and asked me to support
her in her decision, I would talk things over with her and then
support her. I wonder though if such a decision should be considered
'pro-choice'. I would call it 'pro-family'. Maybe they are not the
family values which conservatives like so much but they are surely
my kind of family values.
Pim van Meurs

-- 
Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Incompetent S&L deregulation
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 17:35:39 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Jul29.164056.19915@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Jul28.165058.3375@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>]Given this, the Federal guarantee, if not eliminated, should have been 
>]drastically reduced.  Let those who can afford to put 100,000 dollars into a 
>]savings account be aware of the risk they are running.  Reducing the guarantee
>]to 10,000 would have covered the vast majority of us (I believe the median 
>]balance is around 5,000), and limited our exposure as taxpayers to the crazy 
>]lending practices sponsored by the "too big to fail" policy and the 100,000 
>]guarantee.
>
>Better would be to simply set it to x% of deposit, up to a maximum. If there
>was even a 5% risk, most people would check before depositing. If it was
>20% they would look pretty closely.
>
>If you just set it to a small number, the crooked S&L's will simply
>soak up a lot of small deposits by running newspaper ad's with high
>interest rates.

I think I like this idea!  Of course it opens up another question: what would
most people check before depositing?  I know the FDIC and their ilk keep a
list of troubled banks that bear watching, but as far as I know they won't
publish the list.  Maybe if they did we would all be better off (including the
banks which would under that much more pressure to make sound business
decisions.)

>
>-- 
>John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
>john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
> - - Saddam Hussein... he just keeps going... and going... and going - -


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
It can't be won, the way the game is run
but if you choose to stay, you wind up playing anyway.

		"On the Boulevard" -- Jackson Browne

===============================================================================
"As to guaranteeing bank deposits, the minute the government starts to do that
... the  government  runs  into a  probable loss.  We  do not wish to make the 
United  States Government liable  for the  mistakes and  errors of  individual
banks, and put a premium on sound banking in the future."
                                      Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933)
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: KKRUEGER@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Kurt R. Krueger)
Subject: The media's love affair with Sen. Gore
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:18:58 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

   If you are a critical media watcher, you've probably noticed that the
media have been puffing Sen. Gore up to larger-than-life proportions re-
cently.  I have not heard one negative report, and even Tipper is back in
their good graces.
   Sen. Gore has had more than his share of gaffes, but the endless fixa-
tion on Quayle won't stop.  Mr. Quayle, when prompted, misspells "potato"
but Sen. Gore announces an ozone hole will open up over Kennebunkport, ME.
You tell me which is worse?  I misspell words on occasion (even in the last
post I sent, I just noticed), but overall, I am a pretty good speller.  Even
so, I can see myself misspelling "potato" if I were caught offguard.  I can-
not see myself announcing a hole the size of Alaska will open up over the
Northeast even on my most braindead day, and I'm not "Senator Science".
Which means more to public policy?
   Furthermore, Sen. Gore has waffled on abortion, but we never hear that.
We sure hear about Pres. Bush's flipflop.  If one read only the maistream
press and watched the major TV media, we'd think Sen. Gore is the second
sinless person to walk the planet.
   The media watch VP Quayle for the slightest hint of a screw-up, and when
he does, SNAP!, the trap gets him.  Will the love affair with Al Gore end?


--
/*        Kurt Krueger | kkrueger@zeus.unomaha.edu | kkrueger@unoma1        */
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: Judgmentalism (was Re: Whose Truth?)
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:10:31 GMT

tony@microware.co.uk (Tony Mountifield) writes:
>szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:
>> 
>> >While the rulings may change, the reality stays the same.  Jesus was
>> >very clear that lust is as sinful as adultery, and both separate you
>> >from God.  That is, ultimately, the definition of sin.  Making such a
>> >distinction may do more harm than good.a
>> 
>> The sort of hair-splitting in this debate may be one of the main reasons
>> for the decline of Christianity.  It completely misses the point of
>> _why_ adultery is a sin,
>
>Which is? (IYHO :-)
>
>>                          and thus loses a powerful relevence to today's
>> society.
>
>This sounds interesting. Could you please explain? (This is not flame-bait).

  In effect, Christians are saying, "Trust us."  "Lust is as sinful as
adultery."  "Why?  Because Jesus said so."

  However, the effect of modern scientific inquiry has been to question
our societal preconceptions.  We need tangible reasons to believe that
certain actions are truly bad for us.  Christianity has failed to provide
satisfactory reasons.  People ask, "Why is lust a sin?".  "I'm not hurting
anyone as long as I don't act."  Christianity says, "Jesus said it was a
sin."  People ask, "Why did Jesus say that?"  Christianity says. "His
reasons are too wondrous for us to comprehend."  People walk away, shaking
their heads and mumbling to themselves.

  When religion cannot defend their beliefs outside the constructs of
their own religion, people start to turn away.  The sad thing is that
is many cases, Christianity *could* defend itself, but it would have to
say things like "We realize the two stories of Creation in Genesis are
myths, not only because they conflict, but because geological evidence
exists that the earth is 4 billion years old."  "It's meant to be a
morality play, not history."

  The longer the fundamentalists cling to their ideas against mounting
contradictory scientific evidence, the more people will reject *all*
Christian ideas.  It may be throwing out the baby with the bath water,
but it happens all the time.  Look at a courtroom.  If a witness is
caught in a lie about one statement, his entire testimony is brought
into question.  But a person who deals with questions honestly is held
in much higher regard.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
From: fuhry@think.com (Debbie Fuhry)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:22:19 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: leander.think.com

In article <1992Jul26.161233.24802@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:

>	Quayle has been quite clear that abortion == murder. If my son
>comes to me and explains that he inteneds to murder someone, I think that
>I may consider doing more then "support him in whatever decision he
makes".

For this to be an appropriate analogy, the murder you're referring to above
would have to be completely legal in this country, and your son would have
to be an adult.  Now that we're dealing with an analogous situation, just
exactly what "more than support him in whatever decision he makes" are you
planning to do?  Will you take your adult son and lock him up so he can't
commit this perfectly legal action?  Will you take him to the police and
say, "Excuse me officer, my son here is on his way to commit murder." and
the officer will explain to you that there's not law against it so there's
nothing more you *can* do.

So, your son goes out and commits a legal act of murder (If you need an
example to be able to conceptualize this, go back in your mind to places
and times where duels were accepted practice.)  Now what are you going to
do?  He's not in any trouble with the law... Are you going to disown your
son?  Tell him that since he committed that murder, you never want to see
his face again?  

>	Dan Quayles position strikes me as being inconsistant, Maryln
>Quayles dow not. I would at least expect Dan to go after the doctor that
>performed the operation, in his mind the doctor has performed a crime
>against god, and while there is no legal recourse, there are certainly other
>forms of retribution, like giving the doctors name to Terry Randal.

Marilyn Quayle and Dan Quayle were not talking about the same situation,
sir.  The Vice President was referring to an *adult* daughter, Mrs. Quayle
was referring to the girl at her current age of 13.

I don't see where you have a leg to stand on, Mr. Crain.  This is clearly a
non-issue.

Debbie Fuhry
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: Carter & BCCI (was EQUITY and Barbara Jordon)
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:53:19 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.212918.24889@inel.gov> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>> 	Don't be shy, Mike, where does one go to find about about the current
>> state of the Carter/BCCI investigation that only you seem to know about?

>The scandal of BCCI is soooo big that it probably will be at least two years
>before the final story and trials happen.  If you doubt our word then I
>suggest that you stop wasting your time typing messages and start by doing
>some reading on your own.  But I guess it is far easier for people like you
>to flame others rather than seeking the truth anyway. ;-)

	So I guess the answer is 'no', right? The 8 million dollar transfer 
from BCCI to a one of Carters charities is well known, and last year the
justice department officially stated that Carter was not implicated in any
way. As far as his administration goes, any impropriety would be unrelated
to that particular transfer, because the charity is not associated in any
way with the government. It's possible that BCCI received something for its
money, but there has been no published evidance of that, and the justice
department has stated that there is no evidence to support the accusations.

	So, whats happening? The BCCI investigation continues, but most of
the current investigation seems to be geared towards the money laundering
that went on in the mid 80s, after Carter left office. Can you actually cite
a reference that I can go look at, I'd love to see it.

	Sorry, it just sounds like desparate right wingers trying to find
any dirt on Carter, no matter how vague - kind of like the long gas lines
during his term, or the 12% national unemployment that we've heard so much
about. I just finished _Animal Farm_ again, and it's great to see real live
history revision like this - keep it up.



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

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: EQUITY and Barbara Jordon
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 14:05:09 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <92199.032018MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:
>In article <1992Jul16.131406.1@cstp.umkc.edu>, rdale@cstp.umkc.edu says:
>
>>> Hey people, think about it.  How often has Rush said the goal of Democrats
>>> is to make everyone _equal_.  He has been handing out this line for as long
>
>>        But you can't *make* everyone equal.  All you can do is give them
>>the chance to achieve equality...
>
>Did you crib that from the Democratic Party platform? That's where I saw
>those sentiments last.
>
Remember that the party platform is like the running board on your car:
something to get in on, not something to stand on.


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
It can't be won, the way the game is run
but if you choose to stay, you wind up playing anyway.

		"On the Boulevard" -- Jackson Browne

===============================================================================
"As to guaranteeing bank deposits, the minute the government starts to do that
... the  government  runs  into a  probable loss.  We  do not wish to make the 
United  States Government liable  for the  mistakes and  errors of  individual
banks, and put a premium on sound banking in the future."
                                      Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933)
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Political Math
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 23 Jul 92 09:12:40 CDT


In article <1992Jul23.021150.7865@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> In article <1728@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
> 
> >If you index the yearly deficit as a percentage of GNP, it was going DOWN as 
> >reagan left office. Congress's post reagan spending spree and the S and L
> >bailout has caused the yearly deficit to increase substantially as a per-
> >centage of GNP under Bush. 
> 
> 	Um, right, sortof. The only way that worked was because the Fed
> decided that the Social Security surplus was income, like taxes. If you
> didn't count social security (and put it in escrow, like some people
> though you should), the deficit wouldn't have dropped.

                         1980              1989
                         ----              ----
GNP                     2,732.0          5,200.8
deficit                    73.0            152.0
% of GNP                  2.67%            2.92%

SS(revenue)                                359.4
SS(sending)               [1]              227.5
SS(surplus)                                131.9
deficit - SS(surplus)                      283.9
% of GNP                  2.67%            5.46%

National Debt             907.7          2,857.4
% of GNP                  33.2%            54.9%

[1] I don't have Social Security numbers for 1980, but
        I remember that there was not a big surplus.

-------------------------------------------------------
SOURCES: (World Almanac, 1991)
GNP - US Commerce Dept.
deficit, Social Security, National Debt - US Treasury Dept
-------------------------------------------------------

> 	Even if you count social security as OK, it's still fishy to
> call it deficit reduction, because it all comes back when social security
> crosses back into the red, in about 10 years - but Reagans best problems
> were all left for someone else to clean up.

-- 
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!)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3815 alt.rush-limbaugh:3075