HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:33:49 GMT

In article <1k6fpkINNhbv@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.162005.22316@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1k6bmsINNg34@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>>I am vitally concerned that you would reduce me to a subclass of both
>>>citizen and human being.
>>This seems to me to be precisely as valid as claiming that
>>requiring me to register for the draft reduces men to less-than-people.
>>Certainly, I would say that if your argument wrt abortion has force,
>>then conscription reduces men to less than people.
>I would agree.
>
>I think conscription *does* reduce men to less than people.
Hmmm...
Ok.

>I would point out, though, that there is a standing constitution amendment
>that permits it, though, which would need to be overcome to remove the
>possibility of conscription.
I don't think so, Adrienne. To what are you referring?

> Whereas there is no such amendment WRT fetal
>life.  And there may be an amendment soon WRT reproductive choice.
>
>So the practical problems related to the two situations aren't the same.
Hmm...That's not what I'm concerned about, really. I'm concerned about
the logical problems that this brings up. Consider: If, as I say,
having to register for the draft makes you less than a person,
then men are made less than people. If women are denied their
reproductive rights and made less than people, then I don't quite
see what you're using as a benchmark for what a person is. You see
what I'm trying to say? I know the argument isn't very clear, but
I hope it's clear enough. IF not, I'll try to clarify.
-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
From: Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: AIDS Question:
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 14:42:40 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1993Jan22.005709.12728@midway.uchicago.edu>

I just got run off soc.motss for finding out that no one there
accepts the statment "gays on the average have more sexual
partners than heterosexuals", despite the lack of anyone producing
a documented study that shows the contrary. You also can't argue
with the 10% figure despite the fact that every modern study shows
it's a lot less than that, or that homosexuality can be treated in
many cases, or that mainstream psychology still holds that homosexuality
is an abberation or perversion. 

500 soundsd hight for a national average, though it's not that unusual
at least among the 1st AIDS cases in the early 80s. SF gays 18-24 had
a median of 24, the mean was probably much higher, for an HIV rate
about 12%

soc.motss holds that reducing the number of partners is not a feasible
strategy for HIV reduction, and it is immoral to advocate this.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: goodrum@unccsun.uncc.edu (Cloyd Goodrum)
Subject: Re: William Jefferson ________ Clinton
Keywords: 4 names
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:46:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.165538.19271@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>Personally, I'm still
>waiting for someone to point out Clinton's gaffe in claiming that neither
>Lincoln nor Reagan served in the military. 
>-- 
>John Switzer             | 1/21/93 - Clinton fails to follow through on promise
>                         | to have economic legislation ready the day after the
 Also interesting is the context in which he made the comment about
Lincoln. The subject of his military experience came up in a debate
and he said that since Lincoln had never served in the military and
was a good president that he could be a good president himself.
This is almost *exactly* like the remark from Dan Quayle that
prompted Lloyd Bentsen's famous "Your no John Kennedy" line. 


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: Why are conservatives so stupid ?
Keywords: liberals, conservatives, intellegence
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:55:50 GMT

kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>  There are a great number of regularly posting liberals who apparently think 
>that conservative = idiot.  Most of the time this is an inference; others
>say it explicitly.  Why do liberals think they corner the intelligence market?
>  I agree that some conservatives are red-neck, uneducated people, but an 
>equal number of liberals are sheep following the crowd to slaughter.  There
>are many conservatives who listen to RL and have high IQ's.  We listen to 
>him because he is entertaining, and he is the only conservative voice in the
>mass media.            
>  I am sick of hearing liberals that dismiss everything RL says as drivel      
>calling people that go to the opposite extreme 'dittoheads'.  Conservatives
>need a similar term for these liberals, maybe 'eraseheads' after that wonderful
>David Linch movie.
>  Sorry, just needed to vent my spleen over these 'know-it-all' liberals.

I agree that many folks do that, and it is annoying.  What I find more annoying,
however, is how many conservatives cause me to be embarrassed to call myself
essentially conservative.  I believe in small federal government, states' 
rights, fiscal responsibility (something the Republicans gave up around the time
of McCarthy, it seems), and the importance of both foreign and domestic policies
both.  I get annoyed by the seemingly irrational and, yes, unintelligent 
people who call themselves conservative, and yet are simply self-appointed
Moralists who think that somehow they can actually define what everyone's family
ought to value, who feel prayer must be the default setting in a supposedly
free nation, and who seem to enjoy the idea of bombing things and people (even
if these people are demonstrably innocent pawns of a dictator we propped up to
fight the Cold War).  These self-proclaimed moral enforcers  are indeed 
irrational, trying to press their will on a whole nation, even if it hurts more
people than it helps.  

Conservatism doesn't need these people, in my view.  What it needs is to have 
its intelligent components be the true determinants of policy.
 
______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
NextMail to: 				mci41087@sumter
Bitnet mail to:				IVALIOTE@uiucvmd
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14012 talk.abortion:58262
From: m23364@mwunix (James Meritt)
Subject: Re: Two simple questions for our 'new' government
Organization: MITRE Corporation, McLean VA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:27:27 GMT

In article <1jmep6INNr5e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
}In a previous article, kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) says:
}>   (1)   Is there enough money to fund every good idea?
}     {Checking in wallet}    " Yep "

Perot wasn't elected.  Clinton's annual salary for the last dozen years or so
has been right around $35,000.  He's been living in public housing.
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 01:46:31 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:

> I find it hard to believe that God doesn't hate homosexuality or homosexuals.
> Why did He give me the organs I have, and make Eve to be Adam's mate?
> 
> Jennifer
> +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> Babs: "But I DID leave you, Uncle Henry.  And I went to a place where I annoy
> ed everyone a lot."					- "That's Art Folks!"
> Plucky: "Is there a USDA inspector in the house?"
> Elmyra: "Oh NO!  My poor bunnie-wunnies and Plucky Duck-y reduced to dinky
> linkies!"					       - "Slaughterhouse Jive"
> =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=


You are assuming there is a god,(which is arguable), arguing that if 
there is a god that s(he) did something, and assuming the truth of 
Genesis.  (untrue.  See the two different versions of creation, Genesis 1 
and Genesis two that prove that whoever wrote this knew nothing about the 
matter as proved by the contradictions and differences in the two 
stories.)   Since this tall tale convicts itself of untrurh, please don't 
use it to hit gays over the head.  (Why did god make 'em homos and 
Lezzies?)  See 1 Timothy 2:11 to see how this lie of Genesis was used for 
centuries to keep women as second class citizens, not much better than 
cattle before you let this tall tale be mistaken for the will of god.


Pope Charles   SubGenius Pope Of Houston   Slack!

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13407 talk.politics.misc:69079
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:44:44 GMT
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) says:

>
>   Bill's next nominee will not be as conservative as Zoe Baird, and we can't
>afford someone more liberals.
>


      Sure we can afford it.  What's another billion matter now?

>
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13946 misc.legal:23401 talk.abortion:58148
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Rights of Inheritance
Date: 26 Jan 1993 10:43 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1993Jan26.012347.8703@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM>,
 scc@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson) writes...
>Abolished by statute?  I thought instead that there was a California Supreme
>Court case which ruled that a lawyer who botched the RAP was not negligent.
> 
>In Lucas v. Hamm, 364 P.2d 685 (Cal. 1961), a lawyer set up a trust wherein
>the trust would terminate five years after the order of the probate court
>distributing the property to the trustee.  This violates the RAP, because
>the probate court *could* take more than 16 years...  The court said,
> 
>	In view if the state of the law relating to perpetuities and
>	restraints on alienation and the nature of the error, if any,
>	asserted made by the defendant in preparing the instrument, it
>	would not be proper to hold that the defendant failed to use such
>	skill, prudence, and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and
>	capacity commonly exercise.
> 
>I feel that this negligence is entirely appropriate if anyone is allowed
>to practise law with a license, passing the bar, or even going to law
>school.  But this is not the case.  If the argument is that you need a
>lawyer to deal with the ins and outs of the law, why not hold them liable
>in such a situation?  After all, that's what you're paying for.

I think the point in Lucas was that the court found the the lawyer in question
had used reasonable care, and that the Rule was so confusing that it was
foreseeable he might get it wrong.  As has often been noted, "[e]rror in
judgment is not necessarily negligence."  _Reed v. Tacoma Railway & Power Co._,
117 Wash. 547, ___, 201 P.2d 783, ___ (1921).

		     					Daniel Reitman
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14028 talk.abortion:58267
From: jj6707@meibm17.cen.uiuc.edu (John E Jablonski)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 93 21:27:03 GMT
Organization: CCSO College of Engineering Workstations

In article <1k6bmsINNg34@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>, regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
|> In article <lmc1u2INNij5@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
|> 
|> Well, Paul, I am a DEFINITE human life.  And no other DEFINITE human life gets
|> to use my body against my will.  NONE.  Reconcile that.
|> 
|> Adrienne Regard

Adrienne,
   It's a damn good thing no one aborted you, or you wouldn't even be able to
have this discussion.  How about giving others the chance to be born
and do the same things you can do?

--John
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13853 talk.abortion:57964
From: brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 25 Jan 1993 20:14:16 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu

More exchange between Adrienne and myself.  I'm even ">"s; she's odd...

>>>Can you tell us what other alternatives occur to you?
>
>>I admit, not a whole lot.  Embryo transplants.  "Metal mommas".  Better
>>contraceptives.  I fear our medical expert, Mark Cochran (who _still_
>>won't tell me what T.S.A.K.C. stands for), could knock most of my ideas
>>down as impractical, since he could argue circles around me when it
>>comes to the medical profession.
>
>>But then, I'm just one person, and a CS major at that.  There _are_
>>other people working on "another alternative", people who are more
>>qualified than I.
>
>One presumes you are old enough to vote, or soon, anyhow.  GIVEN that there
>are no metal mommas, and contraceptives are not yet 'better', and embryo
>transplants have their own limitations (a lack of receiving wombs being one
>of them), how do you propose we handle the alternatives available TODAY?

(20 years old, so yes, I am old enough to vote.)  Right now, today, there is
no tomorrow:  I have no alternatives.  But as I said, I'm not the person to
be asking.

>>It seems the majority of the population sees this is a problem with only
>>two solutions:  either the fetus gets its life, or the mother gets her
>>privacy. 
>
>Today, I'd agree with most of the population that this is the nature of our
>problem, myself.  Sorta Kinda.

Understood.  As highly as I speak of "the other options", I can't think of
any viable alternatives the nation can use at this time, either.

>  Afterall, women who want children allow the
>fetus its life, and the mother retains her privacy -- it's just that the 
>privacy includes the fetus.  We are really only speaking of the other 94% of
>the female population.  Yeah, that group.  The group of adult women who don't
>want to become pregnant, which is most of us.
>
>We don't have that whiz bang technology yet that will render this argument
>moot.  So what do *you* propose we do?  I propose that we let individuals
>settle the matter individually, according to their own consciences.

I simply cannot agree until you (or someone else) can convince me that the
life of the unborn child will not be directly threatened, or that the life
of the mother will be threatened more, or that the unborn child isn't alive
at all, or any other circumstance that would render the pro-life case moot.

If no lives are at stake, I would be very willing to leave this matter to
the individual.

Paul Brinkley
brinkley@cs.utexas.edu
Pro-Thought Advocate

human lives will be directly threatened,
From: kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH'S 'HIT' LIST (updated)
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:03:36 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <1993Jan26.102406.1108@hemlock.cray.com>,
rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

> In <1993Jan25.180515.5210@memstvx1.memst.edu>
> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> 
>> RUSH LIMBAUGH: THE 'HIT' LIST
>> 
>> compiled and edited by Ken Barnes
>> (75320.711@compuserve.com,
>> KEBARNES@msuvx1.memst.edu)
> ...
>> Spotted Owl/Timber Update:
>> "The Lumberjack" by Jackyl*
>> 
>> * Confirmed by David Lovely (dlovely@meaddata.com)
>> and Ron Dippold (rdippold@cancun.qualcom.com)
> 
> I always get a chuckle out of this.  
> Jackyl's CD contains the following warning:
> 
> 	Quick, buy this album
> 	Before some 
> 	Tight-ass,
> 	Right-wing censor
> 	Burns it
> 
> Russ Anderson

Or features it on his nationally syndicated radio and television
programs. :)

Remember Holly Dunn!

(Or 2nd lady Tipper Gore, for that matter...)
-- 
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.      * Conservative libertarians     *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu    *      for Pro-Balance!         *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320.711@compuserve.com**********************
"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President;
I'm beginning to believe it."--Clarence Darrow
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14131 talk.abortion:58490
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Representative"  government?  HEE HEE HEE!!
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:09:24 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <93021.52208.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>
>   This according to a report I just heard on KGO Radio (810 AM--San Fran-
>cisco):
>
>   The office of Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) has reported that they
>have received about 200 phone calls regarding the confirmation hearings of
>Attorney General nominee Zoe Baird--all of them negative.  You heard that--
>ALL against Ms. Baird.  Senator Metzenbaum plans to support her anyway.

While this issue is immaterial now, there's one point I'll throw 
in: 
I'll admit that it seems that the American public was vastly opposed

to Baird's confirmation, but number of calls to a Senator's office 
is hardly an accurate reflector of public sentiment. People call 
their Representatives when they're angry about something, but rarely
when they support.

And Heaven help the U.S. government if our Senators start voting
purely on the basis of phone calls to their offices.
-- 
We need not fear those who do evil in the name of evil, but Heaven
protect us from those who do evil in the name of good.
Arthur C. Adams acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil            	<fnord>
No, I'm not the Arthur Adams who draws comic books. Don't even ask.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13419 talk.politics.misc:69101
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:35:35 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What will Bush and Quayle do now?
 <15590.2b5ee646@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>

In article <15590.2b5ee646@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu says:

>But won't that be a violation of her "essential nature as a woman"? I thought
>she gave up her career for her family? Is there a contradiction here? Or is
>it now that since Dan is unemployable, that she has to be a working mother?

What the heck are you talking about?

I'm tired of people claiming Marilyn Quayle attacked working mothers...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13972 talk.abortion:58219
From: lenox@hardy.u.washington.edu (Amy Lenox)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Date: 27 Jan 1993 04:56:17 GMT
Organization: Missa"?
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu
Summary: I don't mark any deletions

note follow-up.

In article <lmc1u2INNij5@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes to A. Regard:

>> = A. Regard
>>It's also basically inconsistant on the face of it.
>>There isn't any OTHER being on this planet that gets to use my body against
>>my will, but you would grant that right to a fetus.  Which we have argued
>>up and down about here, since it's 'personhood' and 'rights' are definitely
>>not settled things.  So, for this we-don't-quite-know-what, you propose to
>>abridge my rights -- given to me because I'm an UNDISPUTED person, and a 
>>citizen of this country.
>
>To you, it's a we-don't-quite-know-what.  To me, it's possibly a human life.
>From the evidence so far, to me, it's _probably_ a human life.  To be more
>accurate, it's probably a human life entitled to protection under the law.

Ummm, how do you argue the "entitled to protection under the law" in
the US?  I don't think you can.  So far, it is just your opinion.
Not only that, once you establish some sort of rights or state interest,
then one argues conflicting rights - something you fail to address.

>>Now, before you jump into that one with both feet, ask yourself if ANYBODY
>>EVER gets to use my body without my consent.  
>>
>>The answer, Paul, is "no".

Think about this in terms of US laws, Paul.  Can you cite any instance
to the contrary?  Your opinions notwithstanding.

>
>I hope this is not intended as a threat.

Could you explain why you might think of this as a threat?  

Amy Lenox
standard disclaimer
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez)
Subject: Re:  What does sacrifice mean to Bill?
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:33:16 GMT

Perhaps higher taxes would be good.  If Bill raised them, it 
would probably screw up the economy, thus decreasing his chance
of winning the election four years from now.  Not that I want 
the economy to go sour just as I enter the job market, but you
got to find a silver lining in every cloud.


					-John Gonzalez
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns,alt.religion.computers,alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Gee, i don't Know...
Date: 26 Jan 93 00:26:36 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

Jennyg, AKA Well Laid in Maine Only writes:

>*My* new housemate thinks implanting any type of boom-boom device in
>a Bush is  Good Thing.

Even yours? 

JZ
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gjh2j@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Im a Joker Im a Smoker Im a Midnight Toker)
Subject: Re: Good Week
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:03:51 GMT

In article <C1In2I.BID@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>If you're a homosexual illegal alien who would like to get a free abortion
>in a military hospital, this is a pretty good week so far.
>
Or if you want to work for someone with a Clinton cabinet position,

Hopefully the number of abortions will be performed on future liberals in
our society, that'll show them....

Don't forget, be environmentally conscious, recycle that clothes hanger...
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13846 talk.politics.misc:69778
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:)
Date: 25 Jan 93 22:11:43 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1993Jan21.165231.17532@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>Of course it has a peak.  The question is where is the peak?

>If you know, please tell us where it is and how you calculated it.

 With all the different governments lowering and raising taxes throughtout
this entire century, you would think that a little data can be found.
Look for Clinton to find new things to tax. Its easier than charting.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13363 talk.politics.misc:69032