HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:27:59 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <exuptr.739.717717169@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>In article <BvAyBM.A8E@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep28.162205.26063@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>>terms. Since most (3/4) of the debt is not 12 years old, you still have
>>>a $210B deficit this year, which more then offsets the small amount of
>>>debt repayment. Net result: the debt is still growing.
>>   
>>   I don't think you understood my point.   The original posting claimed
>>   that a balanced budget doesn't get rid of the national debt.
>
>>   My point is that if you had a balanced budget (i.e., no deficit) 
>>   then you wouldn't need to issue new debt, and over time the existing
>>   debt would be retired.  
>
>Oh, but this is exactly what I meant.  Obviously sooner or later you can
>kill it off.  But you made it sould like an instant solution.

   Where did I do that?  The only thing I want done instantly or 
   nearly instantly, i.e., a few years, is to get spending equal
   to revenues.  Although as I said, I don't see any way that this
   will not result in a much deeper recession, or even depression
   in the short run.  

   Someone else here (inadvertantly perhaps) suggested another
   way out.  Controlled inflation.  You can reflate the economy
   without hyperinflation and wheelbarrows of money to buy a loaf
   of bread, etc, etc.   Plenty of countries in recent decades
   have experienced a decade or so of, say, 7-11% inflation and
   it wasn't the end of the world.   The advantages of that are
   that the economy stays hotted up so unemployment doesn't get
   out of hand, and the national debt can be paid off more cheaply.
   Of course some people get screwed, but in general if I had to 
   choose between paying $2.50 for a loaf of bread or having no 
   job, I'd take the former.

   
---peter


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6142 alt.politics.bush:7093 alt.politics.elections:14592 talk.politics.misc:48495
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:45:22 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <MATT.92Oct5103321@physics16.berkeley.edu>, Matt Austern writes:

>In article <1067@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>> Homosexuals already have equal protection of the law under the 14th
>> Amendment, so that isn't what they are asking for, nor what they want.

>Funny.  In this country, it is legal for me to marry a woman but
>illegal for me to marry a man.  This doesn't look very much like
>"equal protection of the law."

>Or is it your opinion that the marriage laws of all fifty states are
>in fact unconstitutional?

You may have a decent point--especially since married people, like the elderly,
get preferential treatment in society and tax law.  Rather than letting gays
marry and get a lower tax rate, I think that all people should be taxed
according to the same scale.  Subsidizing marriage with tax benefits is just a
way to discriminate against gays (who can't marry) and single people (who
either choose not to marry or can't find someone to marry).

The same is true with the elderly.  By basing tax breaks on *age* rather than
need, they are really discriminating.  The 55-70 age group is, in the Bay Area,
the most affluent group.  They own their homes free and clear, for which they
paid $20,000 and are now worth $250,000.  They found themselves in their prime
earning years when American prosperity was at an all-time high and when
American business was at their most generous.  And those over 65 will have
lower taxes.  When Ross Perot turns 65, he'll get tax breaks that hard-working
middle class people won't get.  If you MUST help retirees, base it on total
income from all sources and net worth--NOT just age.  And did I forget to
mention that they always get 10% or 15% off at restaurants?  Of course, that's
business, not government...

We should not give more people special treatment; we should stop giving ALL
people special treatment.  That's the best way to level the playing field.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
***************************************************************************
"We have been entreated to trade some of our freedom for security, and have
found that government has made us both less free and less secure."
                                        --Thomas Jefferson
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.activism.d
Date: Sun,  4 Oct 1992 12:02:22 -0400 
From: Michael Loomis <ml3e+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night

Excerpts from netnews.talk.abortion: 2-Oct-92 Re: Walking down to the
stu.. by Dave Schabel@calspan.com 
> You are absolutely right.  However, since we are and cannot be
> sure if and when it is a person, shouldn't we err on the side
> of caution?  

Mr. Schabel is absolutely right.  Since the human population of this
planet is way in excess of its usual numbers, and there is a good bit of
indication that this may undermine the ecosystem, it is clear that
abortion rights is desirable.  Certainly that is the sensible cautious
approach.

Michael Loomis
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Principles, principles, principles
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:14:10 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
-EMIL CHUCK) writes:
-For Emil and other republicans, this is a purely political diatribe
-to try and get Bush elected, not a position based upon principles.  If
-I am wrong, please post confirmation that you would support Gore over
-buchanon.

I am an independent, first of all. Second, having a Presidential
selection between Gore and Buchanan would be quite fun. Third, I've had
worse decisions to mull over: try Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Sadomasochist extraordinaire.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6426 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6235
From: William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 6 Oct 92 22:42:31 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <92280.48968.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>
J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

> I agree.  Most pro-choicers are not pro-abortion.  I do know a couple of women who ARE pro-abortion, not just pro-choice.  Those are the exception and not the rule, though.

The problem is, though, that these women lead most "pro-choice"
organizations such as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, etc.

> Marrou reaffirmed the LP's pro-choice position, but went on to
encourage all pro-lifers (and pro-choicers who would prefer
alternatives to
abortion) to invest in "fetal transplants".

This does sound interesting. However, I would think that there wouldn't
be enough people to be transplanted into, because many of the infertile
couples who want to have children are so because the woman has had a
hysterectomy, and would have no womb to bring the baby to term in. It
does require further study, though.

> Rights and responsibilities go together.  Strip parents of
their rights, then they are no longer responsible.  Children cannot
have it
both ways.

I couldn't have said it better myself. 8)

> Not having your ears pierced is not a parental mandate that will
affect you for the rest of your life.

That's the exact argument many make about why there SHOULD be parental
notification/consent laws. It is a decision that will affect the rest
of the girl's life -- and, in many cases,the girl isn't mature enough
to handle it. (And the boy even less so. 8) The reason some girls get
abortions is because they fear their parents wrath -- and if they are
forced to confront their parents, that "reason" for abortion (and don't
tell me it happens -- one of my friends' sisters had an abortion for
just that reason several years ago, much to my chagrin I later
discovered), less abortion would occur -- which, most pro-choicers
agree, would be a good thing.

But you're a Libertarian, I'm a classic conservative -- we're going to
disagree on stuff like this. 8)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
-- Ronald Reagan
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Taxing the Rich (was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate)
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Sep28.174542.1961@anasazi.com>
	<LARRY.92Sep29171948@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Sep30.205835.10352@dg-rtp.dg.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:32:21 GMT

I guess we'll soon find out if you are correct.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
"We will be asking them to join with us. I'm also going to ask them to help us
to change Congress. It's not just enough to change the president if we want to
change America." - Dan Quayle, on courting Ross Perot's supporters. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: alex@ergot.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S TAX LIST(S)
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:33:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.001742.16197@oracle.us.oracle.com>, mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

|> >	Finally, somebody printed Bush's tax list to go along with Clintons.
|> >It shows that Bush raised taxes 178 times in 3-1/2 years, as opposed to
|> >Clinton's 127 times in 12 years (thats 127 increases to 610 for bush,
|> >if you pro-rate the numbers).
|> 
|> First off, let's note that even Clinton's own campaign is admitting
|> that their 300+ number was a lie.  The list was published by Mickey
|> Kantor, the Chairman of the Clinton-Gore campaign.
|> 
|> Now, for some analysis...  here are the bullshit items.

	You missed the joke. Bushs original list included counting items
that carried over to the second line as two items, and his latest revision
still counts "extending the hours for dog track racing" as a tax increase,
because it increased revenue for the state. These "tax increases" are
easily as legitimate as the 128 tax increases that Bush has been waving 
around like a flag.

-- 
                               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

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.p
From: cea1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Carolyn E. Adams-Price)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:42:57 GMT

Is the fetus aware?

Research suggests that the fetus has the brain waves associated with
consciousness only after 7 months in utero.  Before that, the fetus
is NOT aware.  

Carolyn ADams-Price, PhD
Mississippi State University
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:29:25 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

I would certainly hope that the mother knew what she felt!!

Simon
From: kwh@stiatl.salestech.com (Kurt Hoyt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 5 Oct 92 13:13:39 GMT
Organization: Sales Technologies, Inc.

detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:


>     Rep. Bob Dornan has been speaking on C-Span in the House
>live concerning Bill Clinton and his anti-war, anti-Vietnam
>protests during his college days.

>    Most specificly, in 1970, Bill Clinton was invited to go
>to Moscow to be part of the so called "Peace Movement".  During
>this time period, an American in the former Soviet Union had to
>be invited by the Communist govt., and they had to have prior
>knowledge or provide instruction on where he may travel along
>with what he may say while in the former Soviet Union.

>     This is the same Bill Clinton who, while at Oxford, sought
>information on either obtaining dual citizenship or obtaining
>British citizenship.

I am not a Clinton supporter. However, this latest "story" about Clinton's
trip to Moscow 22 years ago is getting me ticked off at the Republicans and
the Bush campaign. Why? Because this seems so clearly to be a desperation
move by a campaign that now thinks it can't win on the issues so it must do
all it can to discredit the man and deflect attention from the substance of
the election. This really saddens me. As the election draws closer, Bush
doesn't focus on the idiocy of Clinton's "Putting People First" (which it
doesn't), but on what may or may not have happened when Clinton was the
guest of a government which no longer exists. Get real! This strategy is not
only going to lose the White House but forever lose the Senate and House of
Representative to more of the tax and spend thieves than ever before.

Oh well, back to "loyal opposition" mode.

-- 
---------------------+ 
Kurt in Atlanta      | "This 'Tamper Proof Bag' is being provided to
kwh@salestech.com    |  ensure the integrity of your 'Software'."
...!uupsi!stiatl!kwh |             -- IBM
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6692 alt.politics.bush:7949 alt.politics.clinton:8759 alt.politics.elections:15391 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6363 talk.politics.misc:49881
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More deception from your hero, not mine
Date: 7 Oct 92 03:00:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

In article <BvE66s.9KB@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <1992Sep29.214140.22915@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
> >For all you Rush lunatics out there:  Is Rush stupid, or is he 
> >just deceptive?
> 
> >Real conservatives -- great, need more of them.  Limbaugh's, Robertson's
> >and Buchanon's; go find somewhere to spend the next four years, because
> >I (and quite a few people I know) refuse to vote for any party that
> >embraces you.
> 
>    I think he's stupid.   Conservatism as a philosophical viewpoint
>    is really getting dragged through the mud these days by the 
>    lunatic extremists who have become its fellow travelers: Limbaugh,
>    Buchanan, Falwell/Robertson, etc.  The George Will editorial posted
>    here a few weeks ago expressed these sentiments very clearly.  What
>    is needed in the US is a "thinking person's" conservative movement.
> 
Tell us, what is conservatism as a philosophical viewpoint for you?
What would you say constitutes it, and *how* do Limbaugh/Buchanan
differ from it?  I'd say you really don't have much to go on.  YOU
PEOPLE are just intimidated because there are now strident spokesmen
out their who don't fit your convenient little image as shy, withdrawn
"pocket mice", but who are as fierce and in-your-face as any militant feminist,
and you just are so frustrated and don't know how to *deal* with it,  
DO YOU?  Well, get used to it.  Your meek little pet pocket mice
have been supplanted by a couple of guardian dobermans, and it's about
time conservatism had a couple to keep all you liberal-left alley cats 
from having total run of the neighborhood.  ROWF!!  They're here to stay!

                                                H.R. Holm
*comment my own, standard disclaimers;
 replies to the newsgroup only, please*
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: letter to Rush, what is a liberal?
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:52:10 GMT

In article <nate.609@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
[Stuff deleted, hope this isn't confusing]
>Then I wrote:
>>|    Hey, you know, I hadn't thought about it but that's a great way of 
>>|measuring the sin of sloth, huh? Nobody becomes poor who didn't deserve 
>>|it, and nobody becomes rich who didn't earn it. If poverty is a mark of 
>>|sin then there must be all kinds of rich people in heaven, huh?
>
>Then Steve wrote:
>>I didn't say that poverty or sloth is a sin, nor have I any belief in
>>heaven.  I didn't say anything about the rich (I have wealth -- that
>>doesn't mean I'm wealthy).  I also didn't say "the poor deserve it".  I
>>didn't mean these things either.
>
>    That's true, you didn't say anything about poverty being a sin. I 
>just wanted to goad you into making the statement that you just made. I 
>wanted to question your hypothesis in re people being the masters of 
>their own destinies. I'm sure that it would be very nice if everyone 
>was the master of his own destiny, but that scenario doesn't bear much 
>resemblance to the world as I see it.

Forgive me for interjecting ... perhaps this observation could add to 
the discussion.  I would say that it true that no one person is truly
the master of his/her own destiny.  The obvious conclusion is that some
people, through no fault of their own, become poor.  That said, the
question becomes what role does the government have to play in this.

Thomas Jefferson plagerized John Locke (not our John Locke on the Net)
when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.  In it he stated the
natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Now
in this regard he differs from Locke in that Locke stated happiness period.
Jefferson recognized that government cannot _guarantee_ happiness, it
is not definable.

So I would conclude that the Conservative position is that on the one hand
that we do not forsake the poor but that the level of help from the
government is often unreasonable.  The Liberal position is that the
governments role is to secure happiness for the poor and that we are
not doing enough (in fact, we never could do enough by liberal standards).

Mike Best
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6517 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4905
From: bell-peter@CS.YALE.EDU (Peter Bell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Royko article: Next Time, Dan, Take Aim At Arnold
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:44:32 GMT
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158

In article <aFw5RB1w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP> popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell) writes:
>steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>
>> In article <605TRB1w165w@unkaphaed.UUCP> popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Bar
>> >Then  the guy that made this movie and a bunch more violence laden blood 
>> >bath movies goes running around campaigning for some clowns who claim 
>> >they are for family values and against the "elite" that is filling our 

Many other comments removed...

Hasn't Marilyn shown Dan-o the Spy magazine piece on Arnold that ran last 
spring?  For a family values kinda guy, he certainly did take some interes-
ting photos when he was young.  And if Spy's (anonymous, I think) sources
are to be believed, make a living doing more than just the cheesecake 
work.  Not to mention their comment on 'polishing the helmet' and the 
family values wrt Maria that his more current pastimes imply....

I guess maybe she doesn't want Dan to be intimidated by the picture...

--Peter
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: madhaus@netcom.com (Maddi Hausmann)
Subject: Re: Royko article: Next Time, Dan, Take Aim At Arnold
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 22:19:18 GMT
Organization: Society For Putting things on Top of Other Things
Distribution: usa

In article <92268.165829KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.132239.6323@engage.pko.dec.com>, bender@riscee.pko.dec.com
>(Patricia Bender) says:
>
>>        In one of his ``Terminator'' movies, he barged into a police station
>>and blew away every cop in the place. Mowed them down like empty bottles
>>on a fence. Was there any compassion for the family values of the
>>policemen -- their weeping widows and wailing offspring? No, Arnold
>>coolly stepped over their lifeless bodies and went looking for someone
>>else to shoot.
>
>Of course, the Terminator was not presented as a role model for young people.
>Murphy Brown, on the other hand, is certainly seen as a role model.
>
>Therefore, there is a huge difference.

This is a joke, right?  He's kidding, right?  He just left out
the little smiley-face, right?  He's making an ironic observation
about the popularity of T2 with young people, versus the more
adult audience of Murphy Brown, right?  He's cleverly mocking 
the conservative know-nothing types by just pretending he's
being thick, right?

-- 
Maddi Hausmann                madhaus@netcom.com
Humorist, Satirist, Tech Writer.  Take your pick.

Centigram Communications Corp, San Jose California  408/428-3553
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: barrett@terminus.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: Re: Budget Debt/Deficit (Was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 20:58:51 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>In article <barrett.717709261@cc.gatech.edu> barrett@terminus.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes:
>>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Sep28.162205.26063@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>>>>In article <BvAH8F.Fxz@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) 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.
>>Are you sure?  It seems to me that since paying off old debt does not
>>change net worth, it is not an expense and is not included in a
>>"balanced budget". 
>  Yes, I'm sure.  "Interest on the Public Debt" is listed as a (big!)
>  category under the Treasury Department, according to the US Treasury
>  Department Financial Management Service report on US Budget Receipts
>  and Outlays.

Interest is different from paying off the debt.  You cannot retire the
debt by simply paying the interest.  As the debt comes due, I'm sure
it's just paid for by new debt, with no effect on the deficit.

>---peter



------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- Why settle for anything less?--------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)|"If your so damned smart, why are
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |  you doing what you're doing, and I'm
                                        |  president of the U.S.?" - G.Bush
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh