HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slavery and the Civil War (was Re: Quayle on abortion)
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:29:37 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>>Are you serious?  Do you *really* think a vote could have prevented the
>>>Civil War?  If thousands of people were willing to die over the issue,
>>>what on earth makes you think they'd have listened to a vote?
>>
>>    I personally don't think a vote over slavery would have prevented 
>>the American civil war because freedom for slaves wasn't the reason that 
>>the war started in the first place. The actual outbreak of hostilities 
>>was caused by the secession of the southern states. 

>Thank you, Nathan, for supplying the concrete example I lacked.

    You're welcome, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. 
Are you saying that we need to have a civil war in order to solve our 
current problem the way we apparently did in 1860?

    If not (and I hope not), then what else do you think would do the 
trick? I would hesitate to throw the decision to the scientific community 
because they haven't displayed much more unanimity on the subject of 
abortion than the general population. The whole idea of an objective 
scientific ruling may be an oxymoron.

>What we had then was a VOTE by the southern states to secede.  Did it
>work?

    That's close analogy, but not an exact one. I would say this analogy 
shows us what to expect if all the pro-lifers or all the pro-choicers 
got together and voted among themselves to split off and do what they 
want. That really *is* guaranteed not to solve anything.

    However, it seems to me that what Steve is describing is something 
different - get all the pro-life and pro-choice people together and have 
them *all* participate in the vote. And, as occurs elsewhere in our system, 
the voting parties would have to agree to be bound by the results of the 
vote. The big question in my mind is how you get people to agree that the 
results of the vote would be binding- maybe if we incessantly bombard 
people with usenet articles they'll give in...

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's broken promise
Date: 30 Aug 92 15:35:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

To: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh



   .Subject: Re: Bush's broken promises (was Re: Clinton's broken promise)
   .Message-ID: <1992Aug22.204013.6204@afterlife.ncsc.mil>
   .Date: 22 Aug 92 20:40:13 GMT

alt.fan.rush-limbaugh (Arthur C. Adams) writes:

ACA.In article <1992Aug22.134641.24704@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley M
   .r) writes:
   .>
   .>It's not like Bush has never broken any promices
   .>
   .>"Read my lips: No new taxes"
   .>"3,000,000 new jobs in the next 4 years"
   .>

ACA.A promise to sign an executive order requiring school schildren to say the
   .Pledge of Allegiance daily (from the '88 election)

ACA.A promise to sign another executive order allowing Chinese students to stay
   .in this country longer than normally allowed after Tiananmen Square (promise
   .after vetoing a congressional bill that would do the same thing)

You know, it would really be nice if Congress were not allowed to add
unrelated ammendments to bills before Congress.  Let's vote on the
proposed legislation as it stands.  Then maybe the President could be
more purist about what he vetoes or signs.  In other words it isn't fair
to talk about the Tiananmen Square legislation that he didn't sign until
you also identify what the rest of that legislation contained.  Perhaps
I would be glad he didn't sign it.

Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . Adolescence: Betweenn puberty and adultery.
From: pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D)
Subject: Re: Why's George in trouble?  (hint - he's got big ears...)
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:20:56 GMT


alex writes
> > In article 19768@cs.rose-hulman.edu, pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu  
> (D) writes:
> >Question for all the Clinton folk out there...what happened?  Why, 
> >during the primaries, did it look like George was going to run away 
> >with this whole thing and leave Clinton (and even Perot, at the 
> >beginning) eating his dust, and now, just six months later, Bush's 
> >campaign is in disarray and he can't catch Clinton no matter what he 
> >does?  What do the American people know now that they didn't know six 
> >months ago?
> 
> 	Before the democratic convention, the scores were 36, 30, 27 for
> bush, perot and Clinton respectively. noe they are about 40, 50 for bush
> and clinton respectively.
> 
> 	It's not really that complicated. The media was stepping on 
> clinton really hard before the democratic convention, and the convention 
> gave the dems a chance to show that clinton wasn't such a demon. add 10 
> points for Bill.
> 
> 	Then Perot dropped out. Theres no reason to think that perot 
> supporters would split evenly between bush & clinton, a poll of perot
> people in CA showed that 4 out of 5 fell into clintons camp. add 10 
> points for bill.
> 
BOOM.  Alex, you slammed the nail on the head.  PEROT IS THE KEY TO THE  
WHOLE THING.

I don't think anyone is giving Perot enough credit here.  The man set the  
agenda for the whole election and got out to let Willie and George brawl.
He raised a number of concerns about the way government is run.  He was  
able to pull in people from both sides of the political spectrum,  
including the infamous Reagan Democrats.  He called for change in  
Washington and all the people who were so distrustful of government in the  
first place called right along with him.

When Perot went, that left only one agent of change among the presidential  
candidates, so people went to Clinton.  I personally think they went in  
bigger numbers than anybody's giving them credit for and (here's where  
stuff gets dangerous) with more fears about government than they ever had  
before.  

That's exactly why Clinton is doing his level best to seperate himself  
from the mainstream of the Democratic leadership.  He wants the support of  
those who don't trust the Democrats.  He's getting it, too.

Not exactly Limbaughesque in presentation, but there ya go.  Anybody have  
anything to add?  To question?

clueless chuck
PearsoDC@NeXTWork.Rose-Hulman.Edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Info on Dan Quayle's camera coverage during Buchanan's speech
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 21:36:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.203214.27790@athena.cs.uga.edu>, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:

|> The dealer is a known liar.  The whole Doonesberry cartoon  deal was
|> pathetic.  There was no substantiation for such charges.  Let the other
|> witnesses come out and speak for themselves.  It hard to take a convicts
|> word for such a thing.  

	Lots of people are known liars, (George Bush, for example) that 
doesn't mean that they never tell the truth. While Doonsbury parodied the
incident, that was hardly the only coverage it received. I haven't seen
anything that would prove that the dealer is lying, and like I said, he
managed to get all he's details (times and dates) right. I've known quite
a few convicted felons, and I'm not convinced that they are, as a group,
more honest then polititions.

|> The congressional record thing is interesting.  Send along the exact record
|> number and date so that I can ponder the issue.

	I don't make it my business to record the life of Dan Quayle, but
I'm sure that you could find the information by posting a request in 
alt.fan.dan-quayle. 

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% f
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:03:35 GMT

In article <4668.577.uupcb@meaddata.com> todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus)  writes:
> It's difficult to communicate a concept, capitalism, that doesn't
> presume to provide any safety nets.

Capitalism is a mechanism for distributing resources. It has nothing to say,
pro or con, about charity either personal or institutionalised. Capitalism is
blamed for all manner of ills, held up as a complete solution to all woes, and
so on. It's not so black or so golden as all that... it's just a useful tool.

> If we would spend less money on
> real or perceived guarantees, all of the population would be better off.

Once upon a time, if you got sick, you died. That's no longer true. Many
people can be cured and return to the mainstream of society as productive
individuals. It costs some money to do this, but a lot less than growing new
entrepreneurs all the time. If there's no safety net, the risks of striking
out on your own are suddenly much greater than they were in the 18th and 19th
centuries, so a new incentive that works against risk-taking has sprung up.

It's reasonable to consider ways of countering it, and returning the balance
to where it was in 1800.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
  'U`  
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5003 alt.rush-limbaugh:4188
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:48:01 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Aug24.152622.22847@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Corby.E.Page@dartmouth.edu (Corby E. Page) writes:
>In article <m8#nq+n.mvp@netcom.com>
>mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>
>> What restrictions on abortion are supported by
>> Clinton?
>
>Parental notification.

This is bound to be a question in one of the debates.  But I don't recall
Clinton being asked this question by the media in the last several months. 

tk
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Slavery and the Civil War (was Re: Quayle on abortion)
Date: 25 Aug 92 22:08:42 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:

>celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>> The slaves may be free because the majority decided they should be. The 
>>slavery issue may have just been one of the first divisive issues used by
>>socialists. The reason slaves were kept was that the government decided
>>not to give them rights. Maybe a vote would have saved thousands of lives.

>Are you serious?  Do you *really* think a vote could have prevented the
>Civil War?  If thousands of people were willing to die over the issue,
>what on earth makes you think they'd have listened to a vote?

    I personally don't think a vote over slavery would have prevented 
the American civil war because freedom for slaves wasn't the reason that 
the war started in the first place. The actual outbreak of hostilities 
was caused by the secession of the southern states. Some of the combatants 
in the war didn't have particularly strong feelings about slavery one way 
or the other.

    For instance, one of my ancestors, a German immigrant, was drafted into 
the union army when he got off the boat in America and he was so committed 
to the cause of freeing the slaves that he immediately deserted from the 
union army and went "out west" (to Indiana) to make his fortune (which was 
the reason he came to America in the first place).

    The freeing of the slaves *did* become an important rallying point 
for the union, especially following the early campaigns in which union 
armies got the snot kicked out of them. At that point it wasn't clear to 
everyone just why their sons, fathers, and husbands were dying. The 
freeing of the slaves was a very convenient (albeit laudable) cause.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 8/31/92
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: world,usa,na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 20:14:34 GMT

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>->that is taxed by the government. The governer made two changes to the 
>->rules, he lowered the percentage of the governments take by 1% (ie: 
>->reduced the tax) but expanded the number of hours the tracks were 
>->allowed to operate (ie: reduced the restrictions). The net result was 
>->an increase in state revenue from increased track profits.

>->     Sounds a whole bunch like capital gans cuts to me.

> Please someone explain why

>   "Sounds a whole bunch like a capital gains tax cut to me"

>   makes any sense.

    It makes sense because of the implied subject of the sentence. 
Doubtless what is causing your confusion is that Alex's sentence, while 
technically only a sentence fragment, uses the implied subject "It" 
(where "it" refers to the tax cut on dog racing), thus becoming:

    "[It] sounds a whole bunch like a capital gains tax cut to me."

    By this I assume that Alex is commenting on the similarity between 
Bill Clinton's dog tax reduction and George Bush's capital gains cuts -
viz, the combination of a tax reduction and a relaxation of the rules 
under which business is conducted results in an ultimate revenue 
increase. The idea is the same in both cases.

>Why does it sound that way ?

    Must be those darned implied subjects. They sure can be tricky 
sometimes.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 8/31/92
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:21:41 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,na
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX

In article <1878@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.123404.26114@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>As George Will pointed out on "David Brinkley", if increasing
>>the size of government revenues is the definition of "raising taxes",
>>then by the same standard the capital gains tax cut, which Bush claims 
>>will increase revenues, is "raising taxes".
>
> I watched this show to. Could some enlightened soul please explain to me how
>increasing the revenues from a government run monopoloy (gambling in arkansas)
>can be equated with stimulating private sector economic growth with capital
>gains tax cuts. George Will did not explain his comedic conclusions.

This seemed pretty clear to me.  The gambling industry in question (horse
racing I think) was given a small tax break but allowed to operate more days
during the year.  Thus although the tax rate dropped revenue increased
because more money was gambled and subject to tax over the course of the
extended operating season.  Will made the point the because the tax revenue
increased, the Bush campaign called this a tax increase, but if this is so,
then by the same logic a capital gains tax cut that resulted in more tax
revenue due to growth should be called a tax increase.  The analogy seems
pretty good to me.  In both cases, a form of growth has occurred that
results in an increase in revenue, rather than simply raising the tax rate
on existing activity to increase revenue.  Looks to me you got a little
carried away by the details in the analogy.  I thought this was a good point,
and the Bush campaign ought to be ashamed of itself if they really are
claiming such increases in tax revenue the same thing as an increase in
tax rates.

-- Russell Davoli
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte)
Subject: Re: Florida
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 21:38:55 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <1992Aug30.230442.27390@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, by tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin):
> 
> Do you know why Bush was so slow in sending troops to Florida?
> 
> Because they have less oil than Kuwait.

Actually, it was because the governor of Florida waited so long to
ask for help.  Bush was there days ago offering troops to help with
the cleanup and rebuilding, but because of the notion of "States'
Rights," Bush was unable to assign them.  We have a case in which
you must explicitly ask for what you wish to receive, a situation
which should be more prevalent (sp?) in this country.

Bill Nolte
Usual disclaimors apply, although if more people had any sense, they
wouldn't have to.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Summary Fri 8/28/92
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Distribution: world,usa,na
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 1992 15:02:45 GMT
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh

slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:
>>....urphy and Frank are watching the news, and
>>Vice President Quayle is shown making his famous comments about
>>the Murphy Brown show. Brown wonders how she could be glamorizing
>>single motherhood - "look at me, Frank," she says, "am I
>>glamorous?" Frank answers "of course not, you look disgusting."
>                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Brown replies "you're damn right, people in prison get to shower
>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>more than I do, and what was that crack about `just another
>>life-style choice'?"

>This is an excellent example of the liberal "value system".
>Notice that a pregnant woman is told "you look disgusting" and replies
>"you're damn right" then going on to make a comparison between 
>prison and pregnancy.  Why is it that women can be safely derided 
>for the correct biological functioning of their reproductive system?

This is an excellent example of the conservative "reading comprehension".
Notice that a joke about being confined to a hospital bed (and thus unable
to take showers) is twisted into a crack about how disgusting a pregnant
woman looks (and, of course, she is no longer pregnant).

>Several million years of evolution went into the design, and it is
>called "disgusting".  Life-creation is compared to unfavorably to prison.

Don't let Rush hear you talk about *evolution*!  Don't ya know people
were created out of clay?

>We are told that conservatives care only about business, but who tells 
>women that they can only truly be fulfilled if they have a career?  Who 
>tells women that child-rearing is a second-class status, and will always
>be so?  Who puts business, career, and self before home and family?

Uh, Republican presidents?

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: world, usa, na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:11:55 GMT

dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>|> How about not teaching morality, and letting the parents teach it at 
>|> home?

>It is impossible to not teach morality in schools.  From the relatively minor
>"don't be late to class" to the major "don't kill your classmates", morals are
>"forced" on students.  If they don't play by the rules (i.e., morals), then
>they don't graduate.

    I'm not sure how valid it is to equate moral instruction with 
compelling students to follow a set of rules. If they only refrain 
from breaking the rules when they think they'll be caught then I would 
hesitate to compare those rules with moral beliefs. 

    For instance, imagine that some maggot-invested, dope-smoking, long-
haired FM rock n' roll type manages to conform to the rules long enough 
to reach his high school graduation, but the only reason he's doing it 
is for the short term material reward. Would you say that the conferment 
of that diploma implies any sort of moral reaffirmation?

>I did not say that science is evil.  I simply pointed out that the untruths
>that you implied were the result of religion were actually from the
>information taught by the leading scientists of the day.  The Puritans were
>easily "fundies", and yet it was they who founded the first school of higher
>learning in this country in 1638.

    That's great, but this country was not founded exclusively by or for 
Puritans. IMHO the thing this debate all boils down to is the question 
of what you think this country was founded to accomplish. If you ask the 
Puritans they would probably say religious freedom. If you asked the 
merchants, the answer would be freedom from the British mercantile 
system. If you asked the rogues and radicals it would be freedom from 
British rule. There were a lot of reasons people came to America, and 
not all of the new arrivals wanted to step into yet another repressive 
religious regime.

>The fact still remains that this nation was founded on Christian ideals.

    At least from some peoples' point of view, I guess. At any rate, 
it sure didn't take long for our laws to deviate from those Christian 
ideals, eh? We did, after all, adopt the US Constitution and not the 
Bible as the highest law of our land.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 8/31/92
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:55:52 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: world,usa,na
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep1.123404.26114@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>As George Will pointed out on "David Brinkley", if increasing
>the size of government revenues is the definition of "raising taxes",
>then by the same standard the capital gains tax cut, which Bush claims 
>will increase revenues, is "raising taxes".

 I watched this show to. Could some enlightened soul please explain to me how
increasing the revenues from a government run monopoloy (gambling in arkansas)
can be equated with stimulating private sector economic growth with capital
gains tax cuts. George Will did not explain his comedic conclusions.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh