HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:56:12 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:

>In <C1C2JL.IE4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis) writes:
>>
>>If you really feel strongly about how important sentience is, assume that
>>Bill's brain was removed, and will only be restored in 9 months.

>"This in no way relates to abortion because in abortion" there was no previous
>sentience, *only* the potential for future sentience.

I once knew a kid who was born in a coma.. he was never technically
sentient.  Could I have killed him since he was NEVER sentient?  By your
own logic I could have.  

Oh.. you still didn't answer my question... could she KILL Bill Clinton
since her actions put him there in the first place?  


>>>Now I've got one for you.  A man is walking through Central Park, minding
>>>his own business, when someone shoots him with a dart gun, administering
>>>a hypnotic drug, and orders him to go out and rape the next woman that
>>>he sees.
>>
>>>Is the man "innocent" or "guilty"?
>>
>>>Does the woman have the right to kill him if necessary to prevent her
>>>body from being violated?
>>
>>Of course... but this is no way relates to abortion because in abortion
>>the woman would have shot the dart herself.  Nice try though.

>Next question - suppose she agrees to sex, but after starting, finds it
>too painful, and asks him to stop.  He says, "Too bad - you invited me
>in, and now I'm not going to stop until I'm done."  Rape?  And can she
>stop him?

Rape.  Castrate the asshole.  


>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers
From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: What does sacrifice mean to President Clinton?
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:51:25 GMT

In article <visser.727661764@convex.convex.com>
visser@convex.com (Lance Visser) writes:

>In <C16KCo.E45@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cram) writes:
>
>
>+>  I agree that sacrifices must be made ( preferibly, several
>+>congressmen on an alter infront of the Capital ), but higher
>+>taxes are the WRONG kind of sacrifice.  We must reduce what
>+>government does, and how much it spends.  The problem isn't
>+>that the government doesn't raise enough money:  the problem
>+>IS that it spends too much.
>
>+>  However, I see TAX INCREASE written all over the President's
>+>speech, and this will only put us into further economic troubles.
>
>	Not only tax increase, but spending increases as well.

       However much the Republicans want to blame the Congress and however
much the Democrats want to complain about lack of "leadership" (which
produces the question of exactly what Tom Foley thinks his job *is*)
there's noe evidence anybody on either side of the aisle or the mall
are interested in spending cuts.  It would require looking their
constituents in the eye and saying, "No," something which they are
not prepared to do and we really aren't prepared to hear.

>As last
>I understood it, he intends to "grow" out of the deficit by spending
>federal money.

      I swear I heard this during Reagan's term.

>  And beyond that there is his "national service (or slavery
>depending on your politics)"

       Indentured servitude is probably the appropriate "It's the other
side's icky idea" term.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal    Div. of Cont. Ed. Information Services Group  UT, Knoxville
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu   "Of course the government and the newspapers
                          lie.  But in a democracy they're different lies."
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: New Kervorkian/Death Update?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:08:00 GMT

kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

 >Rush did a new "Dr. Kervorkian/Death Update" yesterday (1/21/93) with a
 >really cheesy folky new theme? Anybody heard of it?

It was "And When I Die" by Blood, Sweat and Tears, written by L. Nyro.
They were a sort of jazz/rock group of the sixties.  Their lead singer 
was David Clayton-Thomas.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: "Trivial" Felonies (Was: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<93022.034317MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
	<ATAYLOR.93Jan24152617@gauss.nmsu.edu>
	<93024.203911MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:35:21 GMT

<In article <93024.203911MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
<In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan24152617@gauss.nmsu.edu>, ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) says:
<><In article <93022.034317MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs
<><MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

<><I say that by Zoe Baird withdrawing we have the right thing but for the
<><wrong reasons. The immigration law stuff is wrong, true, but fairly trivial.

<>        Thanks for this assertion, Sachs. I was unaware that Federal
<>        FELONIES were "fairly trivial".

<Well, Taylor, I meant "fairly trivial" in comparison with worse crimes,
<such as (for example) selling arms to terrorist nations and illegally
<using the proceeds to destabilize Central American governments.

	Oh, boy, Sachs is warming up for another rave at the 
	"October Surprise" next....

<I don't disagree that it's WRONG.

	Gosh, I thought that the concept of "right" and "wrong"
	was just another example of evilwhitemalePatriarchy....

<My contention, which you totally failed
<to address (instead, drifting off into a frothing-at-the-mouth rave against
<evil communist liberals) 

	Perhaps Sachs can show where I've ever posted anything
	about "evil communist liberals"?

	Or is he, yet again, making it up as he goes along?

<was that there are OTHER points against Zoe Baird
<that mean she shouldn't have been picked for AG; and most of them concern
<the sillier aspects of modern conservatism, which she tends to be on.

	Ah, Sachs apparently agrees with what Ben Wattenberg of the 
	Democratic Leadership Committee calls "the Megaphone Left"....
	anyone who ever worked for an evilwhitemaleCapitalistPatriarchy
	is disqualified for government "service".

	Sachs may be disappointed by President Bill if the DLC has
	any influence on the administration...

<Incidentally, all of you ready to crucify Zoe Baird for violating immigration
<laws, what did you think of Ed "got out with the prosecutors fifteen feet
<behind him" Meese? 

	Gee, Sachs, what Federal crimes was Meese found guilty of,
	again?

	Oh, none? 

	Oh, it was yet another baseless witch hunt (like Ray Donovan)?

<Seems to be a double standard here, I reckon. (If you're
<curious, I think they BOTH committed crimes and deserve the appropriate
<penalties. The difference between the two cases is that Baird didn't get to
<weasel out of HER just desserts.)

	Uh, Baird confessed to a crime that is punishable by up to
	10 years in a Federal pen, but got away with paying back
	taxes; the amount is essentially petty change to someone
	who's worth over $2 million.

	Looks like Sachs isn't so much opposed to plutocracy, he 
	just prefers the oligarchs to mouth Leftist slogans...
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: William Jefferson ________ Clinton
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:59:49 GMT
Keywords: 4 names

kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi) writes:

>In article <C16JxL.Dvx@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>> 
>>    Another question about Bill:  From what I understand, his educational
>> history is as follows.  Prep School, Georgetown University (undergrad), Yale
>> (law school).  Is this right?  If so, doesn't sound like a man of the people
>> to me.


>At least he knows what a bar-code reader at a grocery store is all about..


   Sorry, you were fooled by the mass media on this one.  The reader that
so amazied Pres. Bush was a step-up in technology because it can extrapolate
from partially read bar codes.  This new advance is what marvel George, but
the press played it up like he was completely out-of-tune.  Isn't our media
wonderful?


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Rush's Dream
Keywords: nightmare
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:03:25 GMT

    Say, I wonder if anyone has any comments on the nightmare Rush told 
us about during the Monday radio show? Just in case anyone missed it, 
the details were as follows. In the dream Rush was going to appear on 
some TV show which apparently had liberal directors and producers. They 
wanted him to appear before a huge audience of hostile people while 
wearing a pair of pants which had only one leg (the left one). He wanted 
to find the producers so that he could tell them he wasn't doing the show 
but he couldn't find them. And finally when he went out on stage the  
crowd was really unreceptive to all his jokes. After that he woke up.

    I'm curious how many people think that Rush's inescapable TV show is 
analogous to the current inescapable Democratic administration. And are 
there any other obvious inferences that could be drawn?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.war.vietnam,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Point of Order
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:19:55 GMT

wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
] 
] But fundamentally you believe that it is the right of each citizen to
] personally decide which wars he is willing to fight when called upon?


excuse me, but there was NO ACT OF WAR for the
events in vietnam. You will notice that there
were personnel let out of military service,
being but ONE of the minor things that point out
the DOD was well aware that there was NO LEGAL WAR
in occurance at that time.

Folks may have noticed that those persons who were
holding SepDu orders were retained in service during
the Persian Gulf War, as there was such an act in place.

Now, would you like to restructure your question Don?

Are Citizens allowed to oppose the 'deployment of 
amred forces overseas into hostile fire zones without
the direct constitutionally supported legal obligations'????


ciao
drieux


ps: Have the CongreCritters addressed the War Powers Act
and the Current Events in Somalia? Or are we going to
just sit around and HOPE that folks are thinking war 
and fuzzy thoughts while Our Troops are dying?


-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13782 talk.abortion:57841
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 25 Jan 1993 08:22:44 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <lm1b3eINNebn@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>In article <1jh7udINNh25@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <llne4oINN99f@kara-kum.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>>>>If your nose is inside the womans body, she should be free to punch it
>>>>as much as she wants.
...Okay, I'll play along with that.  But what if I had no choice whether my
...nose was there or not?

>>Okay, let's all play along with that.
>>What *if* you had no choice, but your nose was in fact inside the woman's
>>body.
>>Do you *seriously* propose she should just have to put up with your nose?

>Good point.  Normally I wouldn't.  And the analogy breaks down around here,
>since in this case it's not just a nose, but an entire life (I note that
>"life" is arguable) inside.  And assuming it is a human life, which by
>sheer misfortune found itself inside a womb, it would be most unfair for
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>him or her to have to die in deference to another human life's right to
>privacy.

Why?

Why would that be 'most unfair'?  Why would it not be MORE unfair to require
a living, breathing, sentient human woman decide whether or not to harbor
these people within her body if *she* chose to do so, or not?  Why does she
suddenly disappear from this picture when it is *her* body that is having
to do the work?

>Were it up to me, I
>would look for another alternative.

Can you tell us what other alternatives occur to you?

Adrienne Regard

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14133 talk.abortion:58493
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:30:11 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Organization: The Village Waterbed
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.16f by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In <1993Jan28.010101.11161@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.045959.10247@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>
>>Does this mean you've finally found a state in which it is *not* legal
>>to kill a rapist to halt the rape?
>
>No, it just means that Larry's "evidence" doesn't meet my standards. IMO, he
>has failed to meet his burden of proof.

You are the one that implied you knew of a state where it's not legal.
Evidently, this was just bluster.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson)
Subject: Re: Look in Webster's under "Straw Man," and you'll see this:
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:05:41 GMT
Reply-To: gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A. Josephson)
Organization: BNR, Inc.



|>In article <1993Jan21.154312.17401@news.nd.edu>, fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu
|>(francis deck) says:
|>
|>>Our poor helpless RL can't get his TV show aired during the day.
|>>Boo Hoo Hoo.  The reason is that there is some big conspiracy
|>>to suppress his ideas.  Everyone is out to hurt poor little
|>>RL.  You can't see me right now, but big crocodile tears are
|>>running down my face.
|>

 Rest deleted.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Rush show has aired at noon here since it
started.

gaj
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,uiuc.politics,alt.politics.elections
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:48:22 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexuality

In article <ZBiPXB2w165w@major.panix.com>, dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
says:

>Problem is here, that you're applying religious reasoning (hey! I just
>invented a new oxymoron!) to people who are not members of your
>religion.

I'm not concerned what people believe, nor do I wish to ram my beliefs down
their throat.  I'm only saying that, if God exists, what we would like Him
to think doesn't mean squat.

>Unless your "god" runs for office here, and gets elected, opinions and
>beliefs attributed to him are no more valid than those attributed to
>Garfield the Cat.

Well, I believe in the Bible, and you don't.  And that's fine with me.
But if the Bible is true, then it doesn't matter whether you, or I, or
anyone else, likes what it says or not.  Wouldn't matter at all.  That's
all I was saying.

>In other words, if *you* want to live your life according to a set of
>rules, hey, that's just fine - as long as they don't interfere with me.

I wasn't addressing this in my last post.  While opinions can't be imposed
on people, just remember that truth isn't relative.  (By definition.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Free at last!!
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:27:52 PST

In <nate.1093@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, Nathan Engle writes:

>fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (francis deck) writes:
>>We are free at last from an executive branch which believes
>>that it is above the law, and that its purpose is to enrich
>>private individuals.

>    I might go along with the "above the law" part of your statement but
>I'd say that the "enrich private individuals" expectation remains to be
>seen.

Well, if Zoe Baird is confirmed, you can scratch the "above the law" part
of it, too--at an even earlier date than you could say it about anyone in the
Reagan or Bush Administrations.

>>  At least I hope that will turn out to
>>be the case.

>    Good luck.

We can only rely on luck when we're dealing at the level of Washington
bureaucrats--of either party, who are certainly not very accountable to the
people.

>>  We're free from a guy who calls himself a
>>conservative, but who has taken initiatives on any number
>>of occasions to increase the size and power of his own
>>branch of government.

>    Yeah, at this point we have a guy who calls himself a moderate to do
>that.

Well, I think that Congress is trying to strengthen its own branch by allowing
territories to vote on the House floor.  Politics is (and always has been) a
power grab, and it's why we have checks and balances in the Constitution.  It's
just that they need to be enforced.

>>  We are free from someone who caters
>>to the right wing, e.g. Rush Limbaugh and the TV preachers.

>    Well, that's true. I can agree with that one without reservation.

As long as the far-lefties don't start demanding payback for keeping their
distance during the campaign, I might agree also.  I'll give Clinton the bene-
fit of the doubt for the time being, and later I will let history be the judge
as to whether he kisses up to the radicals or if he follows what I honestly
feel are his own convictions.

>>We are free to tell our children that the way to the top is
>>not the way of crime.

>    You were free to tell them that for the last 12 years too. I'm not
>certain that the truth of the statement is any greater or less than it
>used to be, but I kind of hope that it's what you tell your kids regardless
>of who's in the White House.

The original statement implies that the majority of people who succeed did so
by lying, cheating and stealing.  We only hear about those who do.  To suggest
that most successful people had to resort to crookedness to get there is just
another form of class envy.  And criminality at the top is certainly not the
monopolistic domain of one political party.


Tim Irvin
***************************************************************************
This .sig meets Greenpeace standards by using over 25% recycled pixels.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:28:13 GMT

In article <C18x3G.MnE@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus ) writes:
>
>Being powerful is good.  Spending yourself into oblivion to achieve that power
>is rather silly.  We are nearing that point, with some definite help from some
>big mistakes known as Social Security, pork-barreling, and New Deal programs 
>that were not discontinued when they were done kick-starting the country.

New Deal programs like unemployment insurance, etc., are there to
smooth out the business cycle.  One does not dismantle them when
during upturns because they automatically cut back when the economy
starts up again.



--
<Phone rings> "Hello?...  He did what?...  Bomb 'em....  I'm still
President."
			-- Dana Carvey's George Bush, 1/16 SNL
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14009 talk.politics.misc:70127
From: drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:18:00 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1993Jan27.061426.11591@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes...
>In article <C1Hs2M.3DH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
> 
>>  I am not against protecting the environment, but should we have to pay
>>this type of cost?  Why didn't someone figure out a way to lower the cost
>>before they implemented the regulations?
> 
>That's a job for the free market. Instead of complaining, invent a method that
>will do it for $10 and still stay within the regulations and you will become
>filthy rich.

Here, here!  My company is doing VERY well in the midst (or tail end,
perhaps) of a deep recession.  Our business is supplying products to
help power generating utilities comply with the new Clean Air Act.
My division has increased its staffing 300% over the past five years,
and my company can support average raises of 13%.

Government regulation has been around forever.  You can either complain
about it, or you can make it work for you.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: StarOwl@uiuc.edu (Michael D. Adams)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Reply-To: StarOwl@uiuc.edu
Organization: Actuarial Science Program at UIUC
X-Header-1:    Bigotry is not a family value -- boycott Colorado, think twice
X-Header-2:    about Oregon, watch out for Ohio, Idaho, Michigan, Maine, and
X-Header-3:    Florida.
X-Header-5:    Beware lunatic actuaries in the night!
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:12:10 GMT

sals@deirdre.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes:
>rich@netcom.com (Richard Poppen) writes:
>> Never mind that you just don't get the point of laws prohibiting
>> discrimination.  Never mind the fact that the only "special" right being
>> sought is the right not to be denied or lose a job or housing by reason
>> of being non-straight.
>Give me an example of a straight person successfully sueing for  
>discrimination!!!! 

There was a case tried just recently where a het woman, formerly a 
nurse at Howard University, essentially did that.  She won a lawsuit
in which she claimed that her lesbian co-workers created an environment
of undue discomfort at work.

--
Michael D. Adams	| Since when do you have to agree with people to defend
University of Illinois  | them from injustice?	-- Lillian Hellman
StarOwl@uiuc.edu	| Religion has done love a great service by making it a
Standard Disclaimers    | sin.			-- Anatole France
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14136 talk.abortion:58508