HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 21:09:21 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <C0GIzL.M6x@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>
>You on the other hand are saying that "criminals" have no rights to fair
>trial.  The special "persecutor" is above the law, right?  Boy, put this
>prosecutor on your tail and you would scream, especially if you were innocent.
>
>As for Nixon, he and his cronies defrauded taxpayers of $$$ and pocketed
>the money.  Ollie North didn't exactly keep that $30 million for himself.

Nixon was accused of a number of things but I don't remember him ever being accused
of embezzling tax money.  The crime was a breaking and entering by members of the
Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP).  Breaking and entering is a criminal
offense and not to be tolerated by any official for any reason.  Nixon's tolerance
of it on the grounds that it was just politics, and his trying to obstruct the
prosecution of it were what eventually led to his resignation.  Whatever you may
think of Nixon, his policies, or his take on the Watergate break-in, don't think
that he was defrauding taxpayers and pocketing the money.  He wasn't that crooked.


===============================================================================

William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"Thanksgiving Day.  In the days of our  founders, they  were  willing to give
 thanks for mighty little, for mighty little was all they expected.  But now,
 neither government nor  nature  can  give  enough but what we think it's too
 little.  Those old boys  in  the fall of the year, if they could gather in a
 few pumpkins, potatoes and some corn for the winter, they were in a thanking
 mood.  If we can't gather in a new  Buick, a  new  radio, a  tuxedo and some 
 government relief, why, we feel that the world is against us."

												Will Rogers

===============================================================================
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Treat Bush Like A Loser
Date: 10 Jan 93 23:59:03 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C0nstJ.7vL@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>koppenhoefer kyle cramm (kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>: 
>:   Here's a thought on which I should get flamed from both sides:
>: 
>:   Bush is a loser ( both figuritively and literally ).  The reason that he is
>: a literal loser is an issue for debate in the republican party.  My theory is
>: that he lost because he was not a strong ideological republican such as Reagan.
>
>I made a prediction very early in the election/primary season that Bush would
>win, and win big.  He is a very good politician and hardly a loser.  He did
>something that no other former vice president has been able to achieve (at
>least in the last 60 years) by winning the election after his president
>left office at the end of his term.  Specifically, Nixon lost in 1960.
>LBJ became president because of JFK's death.  Ford became president because
>Nixon resigned.  Truman because of FDR's death.  That is not an indication
>that Bush is a literal loser.
>
>What made my prediction of Bush's sure landslide victory not come true was that
>Bush clearly chose to run to lose.  I don't think he felt the job was worth
>the grief of the harassment of him, his family, and his close friends.
>Ever notice how he did a lot of his work from his boat, far away from
>special persecutors and hostile members of the media?

Whoa, a second ago he was "a very good politician and hardly a loser."  
What gives? 

>
>Ever see the victory tickertape parade given to the soldiers returning from
>the Gulf (NY city)?  Millions of people cheering, throwing confetti, etc.
>60 seconds of that as a campaign commercial would have had so much "feel
>good" quality to it that Bush would have won easily.  Keep in mind that
>in spite of 10 million more voters in 1992 than in 1988, Clinton got only
>1 million more votes (roughly) than Dukakis got in 1988.
>

That is only because of the presence of Perot, who also stood for CHANGE
and for a MORE ACTIVE ROLE FOR GOVERNMENT.

Chris
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:06:26 GMT

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:


>Mike:

>Do you have something better to suggest? I would suggest a huge 
>increase in spending on early childhood education, but I somehow
>get the feeling you wouldn't like that either.

>>Actually, the more legal rights a group has the less tolerant the general 
>>public tends to be.  Two examples:  (1)  America has much less restrictive
>>abortion laws than in Europe; however, Europe is much more tolerant of unwed
>>mothers.  

>I didn't know that "europe" had any laws on abortion. If you meant 
>Ireland and Poland, I suggest that you check a map of europe and
>find the other countries there.

 As I understand it, German and France both have significant abortion laws.


>>(2)  The Americans with Disabilities act requires a large number
>>of handicapped parking places at new facilities, and I have heard a large
>>amount of grumbling from people about the excess spots ( also noticed more
>>non-handicapped using handicapped spots ).  

>I have heard many people who were very glad to have a handicapped spot
>available, so they didn't have to walk a couple of hundred yards on
>bad legs.

  I agree that people should have handicapped spots, but new buildings are
required to have too many spots.  The building which have gone up around 
here average 5% of parking as handicapped ( approx. number ).  The actual
number is approximately 10 spaces for typical lots.  Of which only 1-2 are
ever used at one time.  The point is that a good idea has gone too far.


>Are you saying we should get rid of anything that some people
>grumble about? I didn't know youe were an anarchist.

>>The general feeling is 'well,
>>you have your rights and will get nothing more' when rights are legislated.
>>The black community is just one example of 'rights' gone astray.
>>

>It is a mistake to equate the black community with publicity seekers
>such as Al Sharpton. Should I equate conseratives with Buchanan, 
>or Duke? In any group there will be those who are out there for only
>money, fame, and power.

Did I mention Al Sharpton?  What I am talking about is affirmative action, and
the feeling in the black community that more 'rights' need to be legislated.

>What do you mean by rights gone astray? As far as I can tell, this is 
>meaningless, racist inuendo. Correct me if I am wrong.


RACIST!!!!!  Ah, the catch all phrase used for anything that the black community
does not agree with.  You have accused me of being racist by one simple phrase!
You are wrong ( I could be black for all you know ).  I believe every person
has the RIGHT to be treated like a human being, but this can not be legislated.
In fact, my arguement ( if you couldn't tell the first time ) is that when 
'rights' for a specific group is written into law, then the remainder of 
society feels they do not need to do anything more for people of the group.

:w


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Good liberalism
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:38:19 GMT


'Good liberalism' is an oxymoron.

Liberalism is ungood!

Minitrue will not get me.,,./,*()*...

NO CARRIER




Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11802 alt.rush-limbaugh:13204
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: CM Braun
Keywords: Liberals
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 00:50:20 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:

>    Several days ago I posted a flame on CMB and no liberals have stepped up
> to defend Ms. Braun.  Could it be that they realized the mistake they made
> in electing her?
> 
>    Does anyone have a reference on the elections stats for Ms. Braun?  I 
> understand that she won 95% in Chicago and didn't win a single county, but
> I don't want to go around quoting wrong numbers.
> 


It could be that as bad as she is, she is still 10 times better than the 
republican she ran against. Enough people thought she was indeed better.  
Otherwise, they would have not voted for her.

Obviously nobody cares about your petty,vicious, picayune political 
complaints, now do they?

I'll bet she wins re-election too.

Get a life, kid.


Pope Charles

--
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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush and the Clinton Inauguration
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:32:55 GMT

rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    Anybody got any good theories about why Rush is being so coy about 
>>his invitation to the Clinton Inauguration?...

>>... I have a couple of ideas about possible motivations for him 
>>playing "hard-to-get", but I'm curious to hear what people around here 
>>think.

>This one is easy. Rush is afraid that if he were actually to
>listen to what Clinton has to say, he would find out that Clinton
>isn't such a bad guy after all. What would he do then for the 
>next 4 years?

    I bet he'll go ahead and make fun of Clinton anyway. Heck, Ronald 
Reagan wasn't such a bad guy and look what we did with him. Reagon's 
"Comedic Potential" was a great natural resource, and like all good 
expansionistic capitalists we mined it for all it was worth. I don't 
want to raise Rush's hopes any, but even I have to admit that Bill 
Clinton's presidency promises to raise the standards of political 
comedy to truly dizzying heights.

>I wonder what Rush thinks of the rumors that Reagan voted for Clinton?

    My guess is that he doesn't given them much more credence than I do. 
If there was much substance to the rumor then I'd expect the press to 
trumpet the news from every hill top.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The bad news is...
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:34:39 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

.. The Somalis are shooting at US Congressmen.

The worse news is, of course, they missed.


--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Willie Fundie?
Date: 12 Jan 93 16:52:33 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C0p8uE.C8H@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>I see that guv clinton said goodbye to his (Southern?) Baptist
>congregation yesterday.  Whenever liberals begin to fat-mouth
>conservatives, they often lump them all together as "Right-Wing
>Fundamentalists." Since Baptists are about as fundamental as it gets,
>does that mean that willie is one of the hated fundamentalists, or does
>it mean that he only pretends to be one whenever there's a photo-op
>involved?  If he is a "fundie," as I've seen them referred to here,
>then it seems to me that he'd feel compelled to support his church's
>positions.  If he belonged to a country club that excluded blacks or
>jews, there would be a terrible outcry, but he belongs to an
>organization that is strongly anti-abortion and against the practice of
>homosexuality, and nobody has said a word.  Why haven't we heard a peep
>from either of these groups regarding his support of an organization
>that actively opposes them?

Gee, it seems you have just uncovered two things about religion:

1) There are a lot of variations between what members of the same
faith purport to believe (i.e., some Baptists are fundamentalists, others
not) and

2) Religious people can in good conscience support abortion if they feel
abortion is not contrary to their religious doctrine.

Chris
From: cse0115@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Way Things Ought to Be!
Date: 7 Jan 93 09:44:00 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

	Thanks for the feedback on Rush's book, I intend to start on it today
since I just finished the book I was reading.  I'll be sure to let everyone
know what I think when I am finished.....
From: leahy@math.rutgers.edu (Andrew Leahy)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.transcripts?
Keywords: show summaries, new newsgroup
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:27:32 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


There's a line in my .newsrc file for a group called 
`alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.transcripts'.  I assume that this is the
moderated group that was supposed to carry the summaries by
jrs@netcom.com.  However, at this point, the group doesn't 
appear to have anything in it.  Is this a problem at my site, or are
there other reasons why the transcripts aren't being posted to this
group?

Andrew Leahy
leahy@math.rutgers.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12263 alt.rush-limbaugh:13653
From: burgoyne@access.digex.com (J. Robert Burgoyne)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush in Greenbelt Maryland
Date: 8 Jan 1993 23:06:57 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

Rush is on WMAL Radio in Washington DC. The frequency is 630 on AM radio,
and it airs from 12:00 noon to 3:00 pm. Indeed, Rush is not on TV.

But I've got a friend with a Satellite Dish and we occassionally watch
him that way.


J. Robert Burgoyne		  Maryland FYI		  Laurel, Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giving You Maximum Performance for your Advertising Budgets -- Guaranteed!
	
  301-317-0726 24 Hours	   burgoyne@access.digex.com	301-317-0587 FAX
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
		     Have a Happy and Prosperous New Year! 

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: Elitist Usenet Administrators, Stuff and Nonsense Division
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:44:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.202458.10613@csc.ti.com> dp writes:

>It's usually at this point that people I talk to about his thoughts usually
>call me a "homophobe".

They really wait that long?  My, my.

-- 
____ Tim Pierce                / 
\  / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu /               Rocks say goodbye.
 \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus)
Subject: Re: "One Nation, Indivisible"
Organization: Homebrew Virtual Reality Labs
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1993 04:57:45 GMT

rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu wrote:
: In article <ghartzog.32cl@terapin.com>, ghartzog@terapin.com (Garrett Hartzog
) writes...
:
: |you should also take a look at many of our legal documents. Especially the
: |Declaration of Independance (written by none other than Thomas Jefferson) wh
ich
: |mention God. Look at many of the state constitutions as well. Look at the
: |pledge of alliegence. Look at our currency ("In God we Trust"). I'm sure you
'll
: |notice one thing that's mentioned repetedly, "God".

Look at the U.S. Constitution that makes no reference to any diety except in 
the date.

:
:    This is not to detract fromt he notion that there were
: G-d-beleivers among the US founders, but the word "God" was added to the
: pledge of alliegence perhaps a century and an half after the US's founding.
:
:    It originally ran: "...one nation, indivisible, with liberty and
: (blah...balh...blah)"
:
: Gadson

"Under God" was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance on 14 June, 1954 and "In
God We Trust" was made mandatory for currency and coinage on 11 July, 1955.
-- 
Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have no 
mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
From: harry@atmos.washington.edu (Harry Edmon)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: 4 Jan 93 20:48:48 GMT
	<1993Jan04.182739.106978@zeus.calpoly.edu>
	<1993Jan4.203640.22101@unet.net.com>
Organization: Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: wet.atmos.washington.edu
In-reply-to: stank@perrault.unet.com's message of Mon, 4 Jan 1993 20:36:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.203640.22101@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

   The passages in Leviticus have come up many times. No where else(that I know)
   does the Bible say bad things about gays. 

How about Romans 1:26-28 (NIV):

	Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even
	their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
	In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with
	women and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men
	committed indecent acts with other men, and received in
	themselves the due penalty for their perversion.



--
Harry Edmon		INTERNET: harry@atmos.washington.edu
(206) 543-0547		UUCP:	  uw-beaver!atmos.washington.edu!harry
Dept of Atmospheric Sciences, AK-40
University of Washington
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: patrick@rio-grande.is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Sex Education in Public Schools
Organization: Unintentionally left blank.
	<1993Jan8.205256.13847@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 19:39:59 GMT

On Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:52:56 GMT, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) said:

>(comments about obscene books used for sex-ed deleted)

>Reading this made me wish that 'Farenheit 451' was real.

>'Burn the books, chop up the ashes, then burn the ashes'
>quote from '451'

Why weren't you in the old USSR, then?  You'd have loved it over there --
they were pretty fervent practicioners of *that* "mentality"...

--PLH, don't tell me -- this is another one of your jokes, right?


--
From: jdough@sinkhole.unf.edu (Joseph Dougherty)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Debate in a Vacuum!
Date: 8 Jan 93 04:29:03 GMT
Organization: University of North Florida, Jacksonville


	In addition to the three fine books you mentioned, I'd like to 
add a fourth, one that might serve as a companion volume to the 
Kilpatrick work. The book is "The Devaluing of America" by William
Bennett, and though I haven't ead the work you cited, I'd bet much
of the cultural and educational philosophy is the same in both.
	Bennett is one of those truly unique men, a man of intellectual
accomplishment and wit who isn't afraid to strap the gloved on for what
he believes. He can address anyone of any intelligence and make them a
believer.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:57:56 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: School Choice won't work yet because... (Was Re: Choice?

School vouchers will not work until they either

A> De-regulate the public schools, or
B> Impose regulations on private schools.

Right now, public schools have too many extra responsibilities and hindrances
placed on them by the government.  There was an excellent article on this in
the Wall Street Journal last month; I wish I'd saved it so I could just post
it here.

Public schools may not hire and fire at will, they are required to educate
children with mental, physical and/or psychological handicaps, and they are
not allowed to even touch the concept of religion (especially Christianity or
Judaism).  Until some or all of these regulations are either removed from the
public schools (which would be preferable) or imposed on the private schools
(which would be disastrous, if not unconstitutional), public schools cannot
compete, because they are not -allowed- to compete by the federal government.

...unless someone has a better idea.  Schools can't de-regulate themselves, the
government has to remove the shackles itself.  That's the only way I can think
of.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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:11941 alt.rush-limbaugh:13342
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "One Nation, Indivisible"
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 15:16:06 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:

> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu wrote:
> : In article <ghartzog.32cl@terapin.com>, ghartzog@terapin.com (Garrett Hartz
> ) writes...
> :
> : |you should also take a look at many of our legal documents. Especially the
> : |Declaration of Independance (written by none other than Thomas Jefferson) 
> ich
> : |mention God. Look at many of the state constitutions as well. Look at the
> : |pledge of alliegence. Look at our currency ("In God we Trust"). I'm sure y
> 'll
> : |notice one thing that's mentioned repetedly, "God".
> 
> Look at the U.S. Constitution that makes no reference to any diety except in 
> the date.
> 
> :
> :    This is not to detract fromt he notion that there were
> : G-d-beleivers among the US founders, but the word "God" was added to the
> : pledge of alliegence perhaps a century and an half after the US's founding.
> :
> :    It originally ran: "...one nation, indivisible, with liberty and
> : (blah...balh...blah)"
> :
> : Gadson
> 
> "Under God" was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance on 14 June, 1954 and "
> God We Trust" was made mandatory for currency and coinage on 11 July, 1955.
> -- 
> Mike McAngus                    |You are a fluke of the Universe.  You have n
> mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org            |right to be here, and whether you can hear i
> The Truth is still the Truth    |or not the Universe is laughing behind your 
> Even if you choose to ignore it.|back.  -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata


Somebody once asked Benjamin Franklin what he thought the motto of our 
country should be. Franklin answered that it should be, "Mind Your Own 
Business".  I think we should cahnge the motto "In God We Trust" to 
Franklin's motto.    


Pope Charles

--
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