HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Perot's October Surprise [repost... on the record]
Summary: Let the record show that....
Keywords: Perot, October Surprise, repost, record
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:56:31 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Let the record show that I did post the following back in July. This is
the one prediction that I'm very surprised to say Rush didn't predict.
At least I don't remember him making such a point as Jeff Young did.

*** BEGIN EXCERPT ***
Article 3144 of alt.rush-limbaugh:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.ru
sh-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Perot's October Surprise
Summary: An idea from Jeff Young(?), talk radio show host
Date: 20 Jul 92 21:30:41 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.
alt.rush-l
imbaugh:3144 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3665 alt.conspiracy:8970

Jeff Young is a Sunday late night talk show host on a local FM station
here who enjoys talking politics and news of the week. Last night, he
noticed (as did I) that when HR Perot pulled the plug on his
un-candidacy, that he did NOT tell all his volunteers running petition
drives to stop putting his name of the ballots or removing his name from
the 24 states that have certified him. Instead he told them to continue
their work and finish the job! Now, he and I were very skeptical of why
Perot would do such if he were really serious about pulling himself out
of contention. The following is Jeff Young's premonition:
        Perot is going to re-enter the race in October, saying "We've
heard these goofballs for two months, and they haven't been saying a
thing! Since my name is already on the ballots, I'm gonna run again!" He
would have saved his money from being spent on the campaign, had a
respite from the media and the campaign scrutiny, and avoided any
negative characterisations of him from both the Democrats and the
Republicans. (And I do mean BOTH sides. Ron Brown, Bill Clinton, Bill
Bradley, Dan Quayle have all criticized him. I'm sure I'm leaving a ton
of people off this list.)
--
Emil Thomas Chuck               DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993        1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC     AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
*** END EXCERPT ***

And now back to the flame wars.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6059 alt.activism.d:3384 alt.politics.elections:14481 alt.politics.bush:6972 alt.politics.clinton:7551 talk.politics.misc:48296 talk.abortion:38967
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:07:16 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> 
|> What is interesting is what happens when someone equates abortion
|> to child mureder-they say "It's not a child..."    It isn't??
|> 
|> Sometimes when someone makes absurd comments, someone else comes up
|> with an equally abusrd repsonse to the original absurdity.
|> 
|> 
What is absurd is that there is any communication at all.  After all,
the entire argument is based upon the disagreement over whether or not
the fetus is person.  I haven't seen one argument that doesn't
resort to this decision of faith (after all there is no way to prove
either side is correct) as the "final argument."

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: The origin of individual human beings
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:12:39 GMT

sa114984@longs.lance.colostate.edu (Steven Arnold) writes ...
>In article <1b_p5lc.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> Because saying that embryologists say that a human life begins at conception
>> isn't particularly useful.  It is saying that a human life is that which
>> begins at conception because a human life begins at conception.  If you're
>> just going to _define_ a human life to begin at conception, then you might
>> _define_ with just as much validity a human life to begin at birth.
>
>	Conception is the first time that a human individual is
>created, an individual who will, if not killed, eventually grow
>into an adult human.  At no time prior to conception is this the
>case, and at no time after.  BTW, if you have a documented
>statement from a reputable embryologist who says that a human
>individual is created at any time OTHER than at conception, I'd
>like to see your source.  In all my time on this net so far, I
>haven't seen any such thing.

Still a circular definition.  If an "individual" is defined to be what
is created at conception, then of course anything after conception is
going to be an individual.  Unless you have some other definition of
"individual?"  One that does not rely on the notion of conception?

Also, a fertilized egg _may_ develop into an adult, NOT _will_.  There
are many pitfalls along the way to adulthood, and one of the first of 
those is the common failure to implant of many zygotes/embryos.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady
ray@netcom.com                 of the ignorant."  -- A. B. Alcott
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:14:13 GMT
Subject: Re: TAXES, FEES AND A GOVERNOR'S LAMENT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh



an addendum:

	in today's wall street journal (9/28; B8, col. 2) there is an
	interesting piece by a wsj staff reporter who writes--
		the bush budget included $2.4 billion in fees;
		also, bush has proposed increasing fees on veterans who
		get government-guaranteed mortgages; increasing fees
		on campers who sleep on government land; and increasing
		fees charged to small-business investment companies;
		all the while, bush has characterized these *fees* as
		a *spending reduction*, which isn't necessarily wrong
		since user fees do reduce government spending...
		BUT!  bush also calls the fees increased by clinton
		as *tax increases*   these are the same type of fees
		bush has increased in the past and has proposed to
		increase in the future...

	very interesting indeed...


pjm.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Taxing the Rich (was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate)
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<AWERLING.92Sep18203048@dante.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Sep22.182122.6964@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:17:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep22.182122.6964@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
   In article <AWERLING.92Sep18203048@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
   >
   >Clinton hasn't done any "rich bashing."

   How about, "The rich have gotten an unfair break for the last 12 years.  
   I'm going to raise taxes on the top 2%."

Good idea if you ask me. With the top 2% owning such a grand piece of 
the economic pie, they can afford it.

   Off the subject a little, how long do you think the government could 
   run if they doubled taxes on those earning over $200,000?  Six weeks.

I've heard these same tired arguments again and again: "You can't tax
corporations - all they do is pass the tax on and hurt the consumer, or
lay people off". And, "if you took ALL the money from the rich, it
would only run the government for XXX days anyway."

So? No one is demanding ALL the money from the rich. They just want the
rich to pay a fair, reasonable share of taxes. If the middle class has to 
pay ever increasing taxes, then why shouldn't the wealthy also (who seem to
have an inordinate amount of political and legal power anyway)? I'm not
arguing the justification for increasing taxes, I'm arguing that we all
should bear our tax burdens with some degree of equity. When Grandma ends
up paying a larger percentage of her retirement income to taxes than a large,
profitable corporation, something is wrong.

The assumption is apparently that corporations and the rich are so righteous
(by virtue of spending money to consume labor resources and goods, you see) 
that they need to be excused from paying their fair share of tax. Seems
like they ought to happily support a system which continues to provide 
them with their great prosperity.

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the plot demands: an EVIL man!

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: HERE'S BUSH'S/SLICK'S GOVERMENT SPENDING RECORD.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:50:29 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

    GOVERMENT SPENDING

Clinton:
------------------------------------------------------------
Relatively speaking, the size of goverment in Arkansas
has been SHRINKING under Gov.Clinton, not growing bigger
as Mr.Bush claims.

When Mr.Clinton first became governor, Arkansas was ranked
35th in the nation in state and local expenditures, spending
$185.31 per $1000 of personal income for general purposes,
according to the Census Bureau.  In fiscal 1990, the last
year for which there are complete figures, Arkansas had
fallen to No. 43, spending $172.44 per $1000 of personal 
income.
-----------------------------------------------------------


Bush:
------------------------------------------------------------
By any measure, goverment spending HAS RISEN during Mr.Bush's
term, despite his recent rhetoric that casts him as as
advocate of less spending.  Domestic spending has risen
faster in Mr.Bush's presidency than in any presidential
term since John F. Kennedy.  The White House office projected
that total outlays in the fiscal year just ended, swollen by
the cost of cleaning up the savings and loan industry, 
will amount to 25.2% of GNP, up from 22.1% in the year
Mr.Bush took office. [3.1% of GNP roughly equals to $175B]
----------------------------------------------------------

(Source: WSJ, 10/01/92)


DO NOT BE FOOLED BY SLICK CAMPAIGN RHETORIC!!!







-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 4 Oct 92 05:09:36 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


     Rep. Bob Dornan has been speaking on C-Span in the House
live concerning Bill Clinton and his anti-war, anti-Vietnam
protests during his college days.

    Most specificly, in 1970, Bill Clinton was invited to go
to Moscow to be part of the so called "Peace Movement".  During
this time period, an American in the former Soviet Union had to
be invited by the Communist govt., and they had to have prior
knowledge or provide instruction on where he may travel along
with what he may say while in the former Soviet Union.

     This is the same Bill Clinton who, while at Oxford, sought
information on either obtaining dual citizenship or obtaining
British citizenship.

     Is this the individual the American people should send to
The White House?

     Rep. Bob Dornan should be addressing the house again this
weekend.  I urge those concerned about what I have briefly outlined
here to call:

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515

(202) 224-3121

     Your can either ask for Rep. Dornan's office or staff, or attempt
to reach your own.  This information must be presented to the American
public, and the events which occurred there must be researched and
addressed by Bill Clinton.


-- 
---------------------------------
     David De Trolio
---------------------------------
(detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5930 alt.activism.d:3342 alt.politics.elections:14349 alt.politics.bush:6805 alt.politics.clinton:7346 talk.politics.misc:48066
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:46:55 GMT
Organization: ILS

In article <1992Sep25.123734.3353@afit.af.mil>, jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip
Switzer) writes:
> 
> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
> 
> >In article <5534@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
> [Abortion stuff deleted]
> 
> >Such posters would be more effective then blocking the enterance to a
> >private property,  envolving underaged children in demonstration and
> >chaining them to public building,  conspiracy to deny or interefere in the
> >free exercise of civil rights, etc.
> 
> 
> I am amused by the left's outrage that we conservatives have adopted
> their very own protest techniques.  Who knows, maybe we'll be shouting
> down some unwary liberal trying to give a speech next...  But that would
> be denying him his constitutional rights, wouldn't it?


1.  My point is not to express the Left outrage at Operation Rescues
tactics but to restate that they are not working to gain support for their
cause.  Whether with Left wing or Right wing causes most people like a more
rational aproach.  

Remeber the Radical left whcih adopted these types of tactics in the late
60s and early 70s totally failed to gain it's agenda,  in fact Radicals so
scared Americans that they helped to turn the balance of power over to
Nixon. 

2.  Most Left wing protests I remeber were conducted on public property. 
For example in the 1960 many civil rights demonstration took place in
public places that blacks were unconstitutionally forbade to enter.  

THis type of protest was very different,  and much more constructive, then
blocking private property.  When Operation Rescue points to the Civil
Rights movement as validation for what it is doing it forgets this fact.

The constitution allows to all people the right to assemble,  but it does
not gurantee the right to trespass.

In the anti-nuclear and anti-vietnam movement,  often times trespassing was
used to express a point.  In a free society people must sometimes break the
laws for what they think is right.   For as much as I dislike Operation
Rescue I would be musch more alarmed if every member suddenly vanished in
the middle of the night.  
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6291 alt.politics.bush:7332 alt.politics.clinton:7975 alt.politics.elections:14775 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6133 talk.politics.misc:48807
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:12:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <BvF348.6Fq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:
>: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
>: 
>: >Yes, I would agree that most people who engage in sexual activity know
>: >this, and if they're interested in avoiding conception, they use birth
>: >control.  They are still risking pregnancy.  HOWEVER, if that contraception
>: >fails, THERE IS A RELATIVELY SAFE, LEGAL (for the moment) ALTERNATIVE.
>: 
>: 	Abortion is certainly not safe for the unborn child involved.
>
>Being born to parents who don't want you isn't exactly the safest thing
>in the world, either.
>
Much safer than having your body parts ripped apart and sucked up in 
a vacuum.

Ted


-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6173 alt.activism.d:3409 alt.politics.elections:14617 alt.politics.bush:7128 alt.politics.clinton:7733 talk.politics.misc:48551 talk.abortion:39340
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:52:36 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

burkhardt@FORCE.SSD.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM () writes:

> This is a ridiculous statement/paragraph to write.  Of course at least 98%
> of all people who get abortions or support abortion are "Pro-Abortion".  
> If they were not, then alternatives would be used.

This statement is not correct.  Plenty of women who consider themselves
'pro-life' have gotten abortions (I don't have the numbers handy).  And
most not(pro-life) people are pro-_choice_, that is, they simply support
a woman's right to make a _choice_.  If you think that pro-choicers
advocate abortion, try finding groups of pro-choicers gathered outside
childbirth classes imploring women to abort their fetuses.

> But for various reasons, such as laziness, selfishness... those
> alternatives are not used.

That's mighty sweet of you to make up reasons for obtaining abortions
completely out of thin air.

> I'm sick and tired of hearing about "they do not have the right to force
> values".  In the mere act of abortion/murder the woman is forcing values
onto the would-be baby.  As was said in another discussion, when having sex
those two people make the decision to live with the possibilities including
having a baby.

No, sir, they don't.  They don't necessarily include a baby among the possible
outcomes, and if they don't _want_ a baby, having an abortion is a responsible
way of dealing with that outcome.

> To make a distinction between "carrying a baby or merely fetal tissue" is an
> intellectual(not very good at that) distinction that ignores the fact that 
> it is a life with intellegence and is a human being.
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
All right, Chaneyhall, the jig is up!  Your statement that a z/e/f, an entity
with less brain function than a squid, is about the most unintelligent thing
I've seen today.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6429 alt.activism.d:3496 talk.abortion:40238
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Summary: A fetus is a child.
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:52:29 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Sep30.140221.28493@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com
(Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
|In article <1053@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|>In article <1992Sep27.161223.24601@ugle.unit.no> leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO
|>(Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y) writes:
|>>Personally, I don't believe a fetus should be called a child, not until it
|>>is developed enough to survive outside the womb.
|>
|>If you are going to argue about words, you ought to at least look them
|>up.
|
|And you should follow your own advice (and post your source if handy).
|According to my _American Heritage Dictionary_ which came w/my desk, a
|child (n): 1) a person between birth and puberty, 2) a son or daughter,
|3) an immature person.
|
|A person is a (n): 1) a human being, 2) the living body of a human
|being, (some other definitions dealing w/grammar).
|
|Your only hope is that child is a person and for that you'd need to
|show that a fetus is a human being.  Good luck.

You have neglected son or daughter, which my dictionaries have as a second
definition a male or female descendant, which I don't think excludes the
unborn.  In any case, the definition your dictionary gives is obviously
incomplete if you interpret it to exclude the unborn.  Have you never heard
the phrase, "she is with child"?  It makes no sense unless "child"
includes the unborn.

Try "Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language,
Unabridged", from Collins World, 1978 or "Webster's NewWorld Dictionary,
Second College Edition", Simon & Schuster, 1984 (the other dictionary was
at work, but it was from yet another publisher).  I don't doubt you about
"American Heritage" . . . it just doesn't include all the common usage of
the word (at least as you interpret their definition).
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Murphy Brown
Date: 5 Oct 92 16:19:29 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: 144.163.6.20

In article <1992Oct2.185420.3280@anasazi.com> Mike Best,
best@anasazi.com writes:
>Have you ever noticed that Rush is always introduced as "conservative"
>talk show host R.L. but that "liberal" is never used when introducing
>Mario Cuomo or Jesse Jackson?  This is but one small observation 
>of a truism, the media has a liberal bias.

Most people are difficult to sum up in two words or less, as it is
popular to do (whenever possible) in the electonic media.  Rush,
however, holds the distinction of being very easy to sum up in one
word, since he _is_ truly onedimensional.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
From: jdeke@oread.cc.ukans.edu (John Deke)
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:34:32 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Serces

In article <Oct.4.01.09.35.1992.21478@andromeda.rutgers.edu>, detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
> 
>      This is the same Bill Clinton who, while at Oxford, sought
> information on either obtaining dual citizenship or obtaining
> British citizenship.
> 
>      Is this the individual the American people should send to
> The White House?
> 

No, but unfortunately I don't think people seem to care. After all, everyone
is willing to vote for this guy despite the fact that he's a dope smoking
draft dodging tax raising adulterer (sp?). Why should we expect them to be
bothered by the fact that he was leading anti-American rallies all over 
Europe and talking to KGB agents? Why should we expect them to be concerned
about having a president who could not serve on intelligence committees 
because he can't pass the security checks?
     Sadly, I just don't see how we can reasonably expect the American public
to show any intelligence and vote against this governor from Arkansas.
-- 
John Deke
jdeke@oread.cc.ukans.edu