HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Slick Willie: Promises #2, #3 broken
Date: 8 Jan 93 13:33:32 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

According to today's NY Daily News, Slick Willie has "come to the
realization" that a middle class tax break might not be in the offing.
In addition, his pre-election rosy projections showing the deficit being
cut in half in a few years "may have been overly optimistic".

But wait, there's more!

The Gas Tax monster is still alive, but might "be coupled with some
device" to offset the impact on middle class people. Bend over, folks,
this is gonna hurt you more than it hurts me.

So that's three down, and there's still 12 days 'till inaguration day.
Anybody care to wager how many promises are broken by Jan. 20?

"I will not raise taxes on the middle class"  (#1)
"I will help the forgotten middle class"      (#2)
"I will halve the deficit in four years"      (#3)

       --   Slick Willie, Nov. 1992

"You're lyin', Willie, and we both know it"

       --   Me, again, today.

--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.correct
From: davew@willow03.cray.com (Dave Wagner)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment2 Query
Originator: davew@willow03
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 8 Jan 93 11:11:04 CST


In article <1993Jan7.232759.10507@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, lrabe@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Lee A Rabe) writes:
> 
> >(Most straight people do not appear to be aware that there are sodomy laws
> >in place in about 50% of states in the U.S. Straight people in these
> >states have the legal advantage of being able to kiss their SO's without
> >committing a felony.)
> 
> Just 'cause I'm studying law this quarter:
> 
> FYI: in most state laws that prohibit sodomy, sodomy is defined as "sexual 
> practices that involve the sexual organs of one party and the mouth or
> anus of the other."  So, yes, homosexual sex IS included in here, but so is
> ANY kind of oral or anal sex.  So be careful next time you get/give a blow
> job in a state with these laws....
> 
> Of course, they tend not to prosecute heterosexuals....
> 
Do they prosecute homosexuals?  I mean have two consenting adults been arrested
for sodomy in these states?
-- 
Dave Wagner                               "Tongue-tied and twisted,
davew@cray.com , uunet!cray!davew          just an earth-bound misfit, I"
(612) 683-5393                                  -- Pink Floyd
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:52:05 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <C0rE3G.LE8@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:

>A shame nobody listens to Weinberger's side of the story.  The accused has
>no rights to defend himself, apparently.  According to Weinberger, when he
>was asked about notes, he did not even consider that his DIARY was the kind
>of notes asked about.  Weinberger kept no minutes or notes specific to the
>meetings in question, so he told the truth and said NO.  I wonder why the
>incompetent Walsh didn't ask about DIARIES?  Hmmm?


You mean we have to ask for every synomyn, rather than ask for
equivalent classes?   I can just see it now:

Mr Weinburger; did [you/your secetary/any underling/hireiling/person or 
creature in your employ] [take/make/cause to be made/create/construct]
any [notes/diaries/jottings/recordings/minutes/memoranda/aids to memory]
at your [meetings/confabs/get-togethers/appointments/encounters]?


You know, when I was a kid, if I had used that kind of reasoning with my
mom ("Son, you told me you didn't steal any candy."  "No mom, I didn't.
I appropriated some confections!"), I would have gotten my butt spanked.

Apparently my mom has a better understanding of what constitutes an
evasion of truth than some people who post here.
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What is the 14th Amendment?
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:45:27 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <93006.28932.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>
>   I've seen too many people here who claim to understand the Constitution
>also state that Colorado's Amendment 2 violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
>Constitution.  Well, it doesn't.
>   Back in the Civil War era (Civil War?  There's an oxymoron), rights were
>being systematically denied to blacks by state and local governments.  The
>Bill of Rights guaranteed that the *federal* government (Congress, actually)
>could not deny the protections of the Bill of Rights to anyone.  That still
>left that ability to the state and local governments.  The 14th Amendment was
>created primarily to keep the Bill of Rights binding at state and local levels
>of government.  It did not--and still does not--apply to private entities. The
>14th Amendment is *only* binding on state and local governments.  Read the text
>of it again.  It does NOT address private discrimination at all.
>   That doesn't mean that private discrimination is a good thing.  In fact, the
>Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1991 would be a redundant waste of time if the
>14th Amendment covered private discrimination.  But in no way can it be said
>that the Constitution provides protection against discrimination by non-
>governmental entities.
>   You can say that CO 2 violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (though I don't
>think that sexual orientation is covered by it), but certainly not the 14th
>Amendment.  If you re-read the Bill of Rights and the other amendments, you
>will see that the Constitution was written to limit the powers of the *federal
>government* only--with later amendments (such as the 14th) which also force
>state and local *governments* into compliance.  There is nothing--repeat,
>NOTHING--in the Bill of Rights or subsequent amendments about limiting the
>powers of *private* businesses or *private* citizens.
>   Perhaps allowing discrimination against gays is wrong, but it isn't a
>Constitutional question.  It will take either a Constitutional amendment or a
>law passed by Congress which is found to be constitutional to legally prevent
>it.  Sorry, folks.  That's just the way it is.  Try to change it if you don't
>like it.
>
>

Let me read the 14th again

" Nor shall any state deprive any person of life,liberty, or property, 
witout due process of law,"

You are right so far, BUT there is more:

"nor deny to any person within its juristiction the equal protection
of the laws.

The colorado amendment directly contradicts this clause, as it prohibits
equal protection.

Literacy is a wonderful thing. Try it sometime.

Robert Johnston
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: "One Nation, Indivisible"
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:25:51 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 1993 04:57:45 GMT, mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) said:
   [...]
Mike> "Under God" was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance on 14
Mike> June, 1954 and "In God We Trust" was made mandatory for
Mike> currency and coinage on 11 July, 1955. 

And just look at how adding those religious words to the Pledge of
Allegiance and our money has vastly improved the basic morality of our
nation! 

Just think even how much better it would be if we could have daily prayers
and teach the Ten Commandments in our public schools! We'd be well on our
way to becoming a Christian Nation..

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..
I saw God. He rides a motorcycle. He's coming back soon, and He's real pissed.
From: cse0115@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The Way Things Ought to Be!
Date: 5 Jan 93 10:39:16 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

	Has anyone read "The Way Things Ought to Be" yet?  If so, what do you
think about it?

	I just picked up a copy for $12 + change, it's alot better than what 
the bookstores are charging.  I bought my copy at Sam's wholesale.  I just hope
I have the time to start reading it soon.

-James <><

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11525 talk.politics.misc:66237
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: What can we expect from President Hillary Clinton?
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.
Organization: None worth mentioning.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 06:38:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.193813.8508@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.015007.18403@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan1.195123.11272@ncsu.edu> dsholtsi@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>>In article <PATRICK.93Jan1095848@blanco.is.rice.edu> 
>>>patrick@blanco.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>
>>>> "USENET Warlord", I can understand -- you *did* make a show of threatening
>>>> people in e-mail, and on other networks, no less.  
>>>
>>>This is pretty funny coming from someone who's said 
>>>"march your fat black ass down here".   Who are you 
>>>going to threaten next with your racist remarks? 
>>>
>>DODie, you've really got to work on understanding...
>>If you read that line, it is an invitation, not a threat. Yes, it is
>>racist, and nobody here has ever defended it's racist content. On the
>>other hand, Patrick retracted the comment and appologised publically
>>within a matter of hours after it was posted. Cna you say the same for
>>yourself? Have you ever publically retracted *any* of your lies? No,
>>you haven't. You continue to cling to them, despite mountains of
>>evidence proving you are lying.
>>Maybe you should change therapists DODie, the current one doesn't seem
>>to be very effective.
>
>No, Cochran. You are DEAD WRONG. As usual.
>
>PatricKKK retracted it to everyone BUT me. He told me he meant it and
>that he still means it and that he will NOT apologize to me, the person
>he offended. 
>
Care to prove that allegation? His appology was posted to the net. Any
claims you made about things he may have told you wouldneed to be
documented before anyone will believe you. Assuming you can convince
us that you didn't just forge them anyway.

>If you are really Keith A Cochran's brother, indeed, stupidity runs in
>the family. I once dated a woman named Cochran - boy, I hope it wasn't 
>your mother.  
>
I really really am, Airplane boy. So crawl back into your sewer and
stew in your own juices some more.

[Whole bunches of mastabatory bilge deleted]

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.
From: ryanm@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: I'm Famous!
Date: 5 Jan 1993 18:44:19 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan5.002609.11019@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <12335423@u.washington.edu> ryanm@u.washington.edu writes:
>>In article <22580009@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
>>>Jesus H. Christ!...
>>
>>Your choice of vocabulary is lousy!  You offend myself and every other
>>Christian on this newsgroup.  I am not one to haul off and hit someone
>>but this is pushing it!!!!  --Ryan
>
>Christ on a crutch!  Lighten up!  You are going to hit somebody because they
>added an initial "H" to the name of somebody who supposedly said "turn 
>the other cheek"?   It would seem that if you were a real devotee of your
>sad little eastern god, you'd follow his words rather than use his name as
>an excuse to indulge in activities he himself would disclaim.


And here he goes again....  Using the Lords name in vain is offensive! 
Like I said I don't go off beating the lights out of anyone, it was only a
demonstration of my disgust for your choice of words.  Also what do you
know about my God?  

No need to continue this, I have now calmed down.  I was only pointing
out that it is very offensive.  --Ryan

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  Ryan McNeilly                    Internet: ryanm@u.washington.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"You can't deal from a position of weakness"  --Alfred Thayer Mahan
Moral:  Protect the 2nd Amendment!

My comments and opinions are my own and nobody elses!!!!!

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11582 alt.rush-limbaugh:13064
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Reply-To: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:50:46 GMT

In article <VqV7wB8w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
>crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>> 
>> Oh please.  The quota bill was not a quota bill because there is (he did sign
>> it and it is the law) a line buried in it somewhere that says "this is a quot
>> bill."  It's a quota bill because the only rational response to its
>> requirements is to hire by quota.

>> =============================================================================
>> William Crosmun
>> crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com
>> 
>> =============================================================================
>
>
>Oh Bullshit.   Quotas were outlawed in the Civil Rights Bill.  Quotas are 
>indeed illegal.   Saying that quotas may be illegal but the bill can only 
>somehow do it's job with quotas, is nonsense.  Quotas are indeed illegal.
>End of arguement.
>
>Pope Charles
>

Hardly. So what if 'quotas are illegal'? Exactly how does one decide that
a company has established a quota, and therefore should be prosecuted?
Because they have a published policy that establishes a quota?

Well, pretty clearly no company is going to publish a hiring quota. They
are still going to hire against quotas, however, because if they don't
they'll get sued for not having a 'representative workforce'.

Mr. Crosmun is dead right.


>popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 22:01:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.202458.10613@csc.ti.com> dp writes:
>
>True, but so is pretending to fighting for "homosexual rights" by giving the
>AIDS virus "civil rights".  I have a cousin who died last fall because of the
>"civil rights" that the so-called "defenders of the gay community" were able
>to win for the AIDS virus.  Sure, he chose (his words, not mine) to live the
>homosexual lifestyle that eventually killed him (once again, his words),  but
>the "leaders" of the gay community must accept responsibility for their
>fighting against an early quarantine of those suffering from the AIDS virus.
>How many people are now dead because these "leaders" fought against such a
>quarantine.

The average time from infection with HIV to appearance of AIDS/ARC
symptoms is in excess of 10 years.  Thus, a quarantine would have been
almost worthless in stopping the spread of HIV.  The CDC, AMFAR, and
all other responsible _experts_ on AIDS have not called for a quarantine.
Moreover, a mandatory quarantine of infected individuals would have
_stopped_ voluntary HIV testing.  Who knows how many _more_ people
would be infected as a result?

It's entirely likely that your cousin was infected before anyone
could have been quarantined and before he could have made an informed
decision with regard to sex and the risk of HIV infection.  It's a
pity he died without knowing this.

Let's recall some of the AIDS chronology.  The first AIDS cases were
announced in medical journals in 1981/1982.  As late as the Fall of
1983 AIDS was thought to be caused by such things as drug use,
multiple std infection, supposed immuno-suppressant properties of
semen, and even a fungus related to a kind of leaf mold.  Progress
on discovering the cause of the disease was impeded by the absurdly
low funding proposed by President Reagan.  HIV was discovered
in 1984.  It was not until at least 6 years into the AIDS epidemic
(1987 or 1988) that President Reagan even mentioned the word
"AIDS."

In congressional hearings in December of 1992 Dr. Mathilde Krimm, one
of the world's leading experts on the AIDS epidemic blamed the prejudice,
which lead to absurdly low funding for research and education, for the
outrageous increase in the number of AIDS cases in the U.S.
I would say that all sex is a public health issue.  Sexual orientation
is not.

--Frank
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:43:31 GMT

Tom Perigrin (tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu) wrote:
(not to me :)
: Okay, let me ask you to your twisted face:  


: do you think that we should
: ignore all laws about perjury, lying to congress, and such?  If
: so, there goes any pretense of this being a country of law.   Besides
: note that the law is "lying to congress", not "lying to congresscritters".
: Shouldn't we have some respect for the institution, if not the individuals.
: For example, I have respect for the office of the vice president, even
: if a boob currently occupies the chair.   And even if I think that the
: VP is a boob, I shouldn't be exempted from laws which pertain to his
: office (if there are any).
: 

There are often very good reasons to lie to congress.  Congress is a seive,
and that says enough about why.  And the real pair of boobs will be sworn
in soon enough.  And we'll all know how overwhelming the job will be for
them soon thereafter.

: 
: >I have more admiration for a man who is willing to be scorned by the
: >whiners of an entire country in order to right something that he
: >actually believes in, than I have for someone who votes for things that
: >he knows are wrong simply for political gain.
: 
: 
: At last, we agree on something.  I too have admiration for Walsh, who
: is willing to ignore the whining of the republican party while trying
: to right the wrongs committed by reagan/bush/quayle.
: 
: 


yeah yeah yeah...

: 
: Humor aside,  the main 'arguement' you advanced was "they are doing it too",
: which doesn't make it right for the White House to engage in the that
: behaviour which you so rightly condemn in the congress.   You used the term
: "robbing a mugger".   Even if the victim (?) is a mugger, that doesn't
: excuse the robbery.  It is still a crime, and most lower court judges would
: LAUGH at a defense plea "But your honor, the defendant was doing it as
: a civil service!".


No, the argument is that they are doing it too, and should be equally harassed.
Fair is fair :)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Re: The Way Things Ought to Be!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:44:52 GMT

In article <1icfadINNmoq@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.
EDU writes:
>cse0115@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>   Has anyone read "The Way Things Ought to Be" yet?  If so, what do you
>>think about it?
>
>[...]
>
>If anybody reading this list hasn't read Rush's book yet, do so.  You'll
>understand Rush and his radio and TV shows a lot better after you do.
>(Especially liberals.  Don't you want to understand people and be truly
>open-minded individuals?  Open your minds to conservatism, then.  Go ahead.  I
>dare ya.  8-)

     Geez, I dunno, Chuck. The problem with Rush's book is that he starts out 
with such an incredible torrent of sheer abuse and arrogance. Granted, much of 
this is deserved, but the effect it very easily could have is to make liberals
who *do* pick up the book say "What an asshole. I don't have the time to read
this crap." I don't know about you, but I find it hard to open my mind to 
someone's ideas when they're calling me an idiot and talking about how great 
they are.
     The book gets better as it goes along, and is great near the end. But I
doubt too many liberals will be around by that point, and, frankly, I couldn't
blame them if they weren't. "The Way" is a book only the hard core will finish
and, IMO, that's a shame.

                                        Steve
|
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Who sings "Moving On Up"?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 17:55:49 GMT

Any trivia buffs able to help out a poor summary writer by telling me
who performs "Moving On Up," which is Rush's update theme for Carol 
Moseley Braun. Thanks much - John Switzer.
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- MST3K's Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, 
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | after TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: We need more liberalism!
Keywords: Stephen Chaney, paranoia
Date: 5 Jan 93 19:39:33 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University

And people said Ross Perot was paranoid! Get a grip on reality Steveyboy.
The liberals and commies are not out to get you. You're not worth the 
effort.

Remember, take your pills every day to keep the men with the
white jackets away.

Robert Johnston
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh