HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alex@umbc5.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: Carter & BCCI (was EQUITY and Barbara Jordon)
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:44:13 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.160212.19968@inel.gov> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>Alex, if you would have kept the first part of my message, I stated two
>sources of information concerning Carter and BCCI, a Time magazine cover
>story and a report by the TV show "60 Minutes".

	Sorry, I'll address that issue now. You quoted the origian 
allegations, but failed to mention that since the Time and 60 minutes
articles, Carter has been fully investigated and found completely innocent.
Not only were no charges filed, but there was found to be no evidence of
ethical violations by Carter.

	Regarding other democrats, it would not surprise me if there are
guilty people around, but Carter does not appear to be one of them.

	Regarding the airline fares, Carters traveling expenses, in connection
to a charity that Carter promted, were paid by BCCI. BCCI also gave some
$8Million to the charity. This is well known, and apperently meaningless.
There has not been any evidance (that I know of) that BCCI received anything
for their gesture: no kickbacks, no favors, nothing. The money has been
fully audited and was all spent correctly. Carters relationship with the
charity is largly a figurehead, he is not involved with the actual dispersing
of the funds.

	So, where is the unethical behavior? Neither your nor Mike seem
to have any idea what Carter is guilty of, in spite of being "well informed".
I belive that you really don't know, but you're willing to belive that he
was guilty of something, because you want to paint him as a bad person.
You are welcome to do this, but if your going to spout off about it, you
should at least know what your accusing him of.

>ONCE AGAIN, RATHER THAN BLABBER ABOUT A SUBJECT, GO OUT AND RESEARCH IT!!!

	I have. I don't watch TV, but I've read the Time article, and 
numerous other reports, mostly in the Times. If you could be more specific,
I'll be happy to look elsewhere.

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

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The media's love affair with Sen. Gore
Date: 23 Jul 92 22:00:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: psygate.nate.376
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

KKRUEGER@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Kurt R. Krueger) writes:
>If one read only the maistream press and watched the major TV media, we'd 
>think Sen. Gore is the second sinless person to walk the planet.

    Nah, not the second but maybe the third or fourth.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Date: 22 Jul 92 15:20:23 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>>Spoken as a only a True Republican could. Interesting how the President
>>can be responsible for all the POSITIVE effects of a policy while Congress
>>can be responsible for all the NEGATIVE effects. (This simple black/white 
>>principle only applies if you have a Republican president, however.)

>Anyone who does not put some of the blame on Bush is simply not paying
>attention.  But his sin was, for the most part, trying to compromise
>with people (the Congress) who had their own self-interests at heart.

    Perhaps, however I would bet (from what little I know of Larry) that
he meant to include Ronald Reagon under the general term "the President".
It's been a matter of some concern to me that Reagon-in-retirement has
lived up to his reputation as "The Teflon President" far better than he
managed while he was actually in office. The growth of the budget deficit
was just as alarming and out-of-control under Reagon as it's been under
Bush.

--
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: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 08:58:23 GMT

In article <nate.379@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>> Oh, your trying to make an election issue out of it.
>
>    No, I'm not trying to *make* an election issue of it. 

Perhaps you are not, but the Democrats are.  The similarities between 
Carter and Clinton are too obvious; the legitimacy of Clinton 
relies at least in part on the legitimacy of Carter and the smearing 
of Reagan. 

The main motivation of Reagan-bashing, is not, however, unique to this
election; for liberalism to regain legitamacy it must discredit the
conservative President who rescued our economy from sliding into Third 
World level inflation and interest rates, the President who freed up
our creeping-socialist markets and broke up the OPEC monopoly, the 
President who made entrepreneurs the good guys again and made our country 
strong again, the President who ultimately, with his successor Bush, 
undermined the Soviet economy and morale, winning the Cold War for the 
West.  It's going to take a _lot_ of bashing to smear the reputation of 
the greatest President of the 20th century; rotsa ruck!


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81) 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3823 rec.arts.misc:345 rec.music.christian:5314
From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.misc,rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: Whose Truth? (was Re: Free speech and artistic style at the NEA)
Date: 25 Jul 92 07:52:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Jul25.075231.7538
Organization: TECHbooks --- Public Access UNIX --- (503) 644-8135

In article <92199.032933MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Norman St. John Polevaulter) writes:

>You have an unfortunately distorted view of the ACLU. The ACLU is devoted
>to the First Amendment -- among other things, government is not allowed
>to establish or support a religion.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmm, I wonder why you felt the need to say establish _or_ support?
The First Ammendment says govnt. cannot establish a religion; it does
not say anything about govnt. supporting a religion.


-- 
szabo@techbook.COM  Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400, N81)
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: EQUITY and Barbara Jordon
Date: 23 Jul 92 15:16:13 GMT
Article-I.D.: psygate.nate.373
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>What do liberals expect to get
>from Clinton that they haven't gotten from Bush?

    A more articulate VP?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3848 alt.rush-limbaugh:3115
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Date: 26 Jul 92 17:34:50 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>> Oh, your trying to make an election issue out of it.

>>    No, I'm not trying to *make* an election issue of it. 

>Perhaps you are not, but the Democrats are.

    I think you missed my point. My point is that it's not necessary for 
me or the Democrats or anyone else to inflate the importance of the S&L 
deregulation debacle. We could dissolve the Democratic party tommorrow and
people would still be mad about the S&L crisis.

>The similarities between Carter and Clinton are too obvious; the 
>legitimacy of Clinton relies at least in part on the legitimacy of Carter 
>and the smearing of Reagan. 

    And the legitimacy of Bush relies at least in part on the legitimacy 
of Reagon and the smearing of Carter. What's your point?

>The main motivation of Reagan-bashing, is not, however, unique to this
>election

    That's right. We've had plenty of politicians who've screwed up in 
the past and I'm sure we'll have more in the future. If you believe that my 
comments about Reagon and his hand in S&L deregulation are discreditable to 
Reagon, then I'd say that they have achieved their purpose. I'm not sure 
that I would say that pointing out mistakes constitutes "bashing"; if I 
had wanted to "bash" Reagon then I would have called him a doddering old 
fool, but that's not my intent. All I'm interested in is pointing out a 
policy in which Reagon got his way (with less than desirable results).

>It's going to take a _lot_ of bashing to smear the reputation of 
>the greatest President of the 20th century

    Yeah, that's true. It would be really hard to bring down JFK.

>rotsa ruck!

    Hmmm, you must be an Alan Sherman fan. Wasn't that a line from one of 
his songs? 

   "If this isn't satisfactory,
    You must take it to the factory,
    But the factory's in Japan,
    So rotsa ruck..."

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3922 alt.rush-limbaugh:3158
From: huggins@dss1.austin.ibm.com (Jim Huggins         (8-8305))
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 28 Jul 92 14:46:56 GMT
Organization: IBM, Austin

In article <1992Jul24.150219.21396@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>	My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.

But that's not what he was trying to say.  I happened to catch that
part of King's show while channel-flipping.  His answer to King's
question ("If she chose to have an abortion, would you support that
decision?") was "I would support *her*" (emphasis Quayle's, not mine).
That is -- "I would continue to love and care for my daughter, although
I would disagree with her actions."

What would you rather Quayle say to be consistent?  "Dad, I just had
an abortion."  "Get out of my house now, you murderer."  That's silly.

Frankly, that's about the only answer Quayle could give.  As the law
stands, if Quayle's daughter wanted to get an abortion, there's not
a thing he could do about it (though he could prohibit her from
going on a field trip or getting her ears pierced).  

A man speaks about how he would love his daughter even when she does
something with which he strongly disagrees and liberals jump down
his throat.  Sigh.

--------------------
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:15:25 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 18982@afit.af.mil, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>And as far as the vice president is concerned, instead of making this
>into a referendum of abortion, why not substitute the following question
>and see how *you* would answer it?  "Would you support your daughter if
>she make a terrible mistake and robbed a bank?"  
>This has nothing to do with whether or not he agreed with her decision--just 
>about strong family commitment and love.

I am pro-choice and I would support any of my hypothetical kids whatever
they did.  I am not faced with this quandry because pro-choice views are
consistent.  Anti-choice viewpoints are duplicitous and deceitful.

---
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dawdy@tellabs.com (Dan Dawdy)
Subject: I have it digitazed (was Re: KENNEDY SONGS....PLEEEEEEEZE!!!)
Organization: Tellabs, Inc., Lisle, IL
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 23:26:55 GMT

In article <1682A15046.N020BA@tamvm1.tamu.edu> N020BA@tamvm1.tamu.edu writes:
>In article <q7cmqw#.jrs@netcom.com>
>jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
> 
>>
>>*******************
>>"I'm a Philanderer"
>>*******************
>>
>>Oh well, I'm the type of guy who will never settle down..ect...ect

I have this song digitzed and will post it in a VOC format if
there is enough call for it.  

Dan
dawdy@tellabs.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gsh@iti.org (Greg Halbrook)
Subject: Re: The real deal
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 13:15:43 GMT

jroberts@vax1.umkc.edu writes:

>Despite all of the atttention given to the Rush Limbaugh Fan Club, not all of
>it is good.  Some of it, including mine, is false.  

>The only reason I listen to him is to get an idea of how stupid someone can
>really be.  His problem is that he has captured the hearts of many listeners
>who don't want to think for himself.  Instead, he thinks for them.  That's why
>he's one of the most listened-to talk-show hosts in the country.

>Another thing about him that pisses me off is his arrogance.  I heard him
>talking to an African-American about the Rodney King issue once.  The man
>seemed to be more intelligent than Rush because whenever he disputed something
>that he said, Rush cut him off.  That just sums up his one big problem:  no
>matter how many newspapers or magazines or journals you read every day, you'll
>always be known as the man who dropped out of college and always seems to be
>frightened of any caller to your show that has one and disagrees with you 100%

>That's all I have to say about Rush Limbaugh.  My opinion may not matter much
>to some of the loyal listeners to his shows, but at least I'm thinking.

It would appear, by listening to his callers, that many do prefer to let Rush
do their thinking for them, but that's hopefully not the norm of his listeners.
I agree with Rush as often as I disagree.  I warn people to beware of his 
gigantic ego problem.  His arrogance is almost as bad as the number of breaks
put into his 45 minute show in order to stretch it into a three hour program.
I have witnessed Rush hold someone through a break or two so he can allow the 
caller to discuss a dissenting opinion and then brag about how great he is for 
holding on to the call where others wouldn't.  Then, after holding said caller
through two breaks, he suddenly runs out of time again and never lets the 
caller get to the meat of the opinion.  I consider myself a "loyal listener"
yet I do my own thinking.  I'm fully capable in seeing through Rush's tactics
and errors in logic, yet I find that his show is still pretty humorous and I 
enjoy it.  Please keep in mind that the show is about Rush Limbaugh and HIS
opinions.  If you don't like it, fine, but holding those who do in contempt
is a bit narrow-minded.

>							J. C. Roberts
>							University of Missouri-
>							   Kansas City
>===============================================================================
>"If you have no confidence in self, then you are twice defeated in the race of
>life.  With confidence, you have won the battle even before it has begun."
>						
>							Marcus Garvey
>================================================================================

--
					Greg.
-----------------------
Insert pithy quote here
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dostalik@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Bill Dostalik)
Subject: Re: Incompetent S&L deregulation
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:31:42 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.165058.3375@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@mickey.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>In article <nate.383@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>>>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>>>...I hope we would agree that 
>>>>the deregulation of the S&L's was not one of Reagon's most successful
>>>>policies?
>>
>>>Agreed. The problem was that Reagan took away the regulations without taking
>>>away the insurance subsidies.  It was still possible for a wealthy
>>>depositor to put $1 million in 10 different accounts, the S&Ls to turn 
>>>it into $50 million in risky mortgages, and they whole deal to be backed 
>>>100% by our tax dollars.
>>
>>    So, do you think that everything would be just rosy today if the S&L's
[stuff deleted]

Just an FYI, Regulation Q, which restricted the amount of interest that could
be paid by S&L's, was removed in *1980*.  The FSLIC/FDIC limit was raised to
$100K in *1980*.  In 1980 the Carter administration was still in power.
It would have been rather difficult and unpopular for RR to bring the FSLIC
limit back down, or reinstitute Q, but, in retrospect, it appears he should
have fixed the Carter administration's mistake.

If you don't believe these changes caused the S&L crisis, it might be
interesting to know that even John Kenneth Galbraith does (according to 
William F. Buckley's review of his latest book, Galbraith claimed in the
book that these two regulation changes were the main cause, although 
Galbraith mischieviously noted they occurred in "the early '80's",  an
obvious attempt to attribute the mistakes to RR).

Just thought I'd throw that tidbit in, back to rec.sport.football.college.

- Bill D.                           dostalik@spdc.ti.com

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: dgp@atlas.wustl.edu (Don Porter)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 19:42:17 GMT

<1992Jul24.082924.17016@hemlock.cray.com> (Russ Anderson) :
>> Hmmm...  If Dan Quayle's daughter decided to rob a bank, would Dan
>> support that decision too?

<Brwp1E.CMB@solbourne.com> (William Kucharski) writes:
> I'd expect him to be very disappointed in her, but not to love her any less.

I don't want to pick on Russ and William specifically here, but has
anyone given any thought to how Dan Quayle's daughter might feel
about being used in this way?  This is getting about as bad as the
Dukakis debate question about someone attacking his wife.  I'm sure the 
Quayles have gotten used to being treated as symbols rather than people, 
but that doesn't mean it's right to continue.  Isn't there some
other way we can discuss the VP's comments?

>| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 

Hey, Longmont!  That's where my family lived from 1969-71.  I built
many a fine snowman there.

|   Don Porter | dgp@saturn.wustl.edu | Washington University in St Louis   |
|  "The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they     |
|   please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we       |
|___risk congratulations." -- Edmund Burke._________________________________|
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The depth of Right wing BS
Date: 21 Jul 92 20:51:40 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Jul21.132708.24458@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

->The Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday (Monday) that compared
->the stock market results under Dems & Repubs since 1900.  The Market
->did slightly better under the Dems, althought it was close enought to 
->be concidered a statistical tie.  Reagan/Bush edged out Carter ~15% to
->12% increase, but I'm sure that if Reagan's years were separated from
->Bush's four, that Carter's years beat Bush's.

  This is how the Fourth Estate has been brainwashing the american public
 for the last two years. You can NOT combine a man who called Free Market
 Economics "VooDoo Economics" with President Reagan. Why are you eating
 these distortions ? Did that Wall Street Journal article appear on page 1 ?
 Conservatives ran a candidate against Bush, remember ? All your democratic
 contenders where very happy to see Buchanan get in the 30 percentiles.

  George Bush gave liberals a tax increase and civil rights bill. How do
 they return the favor ? The same way the congress has treated our tax
 money. 
          They want more.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:26:50 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1728@celia.UUCP> steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> In article <nate.364@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>  - text deleted -
> > The growth of the budget deficit
> >was just as alarming and out-of-control under Reagon as it's been under
> >Bush.
>
> If you index the yearly deficit as a percentage of GNP, it was going DOWN as
> reagan left office. Congress's post reagan spending spree and the S and L
> bailout has caused the yearly deficit to increase substantially as a per-
> centage of GNP under Bush.
>

If you index the federal budget in terms of inflation, you will find that
in 1968, the man who gave us "Guns and our Butter, too" (LBJ) submitted
a $200Billion budget - to finance the vietnam war and many many new social
programs.  Today's budget is 8x higher, yet inflation has not made the
cost of living increase by even half that.

>  Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.misc,rec.music.christian
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Subject: Re: Whose Truth? (was Re: Free speech and artistic style at the NEA)
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:39:06 GMT

harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:

>I think it is important that government institutions officially
>recognize that at least *some* citizens have religious beliefs.
>Banning the "moment of silence" prevents people of *all* religions from
>having a quiet moment before classes in public facilities.  In short,
>the lowest common denominator is not *no* religion, it is no
>*particular* religion.

And what about people of *no* religion, Dan - or do their feelings
count?

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive P a u l  M o l o n e y "Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the  rem
james Trinity College,Dublin PMOLONEY%MATHS.TCD.IE@PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU mind." vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh