HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: KKRUEGER@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Kurt R. Krueger)
Subject: Re: Conservatives on Personal Freedoms (Re: Drug Legalization)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:45:26 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <1992Aug13.171726.25827@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes:
 
> William F. Buckley, Jr. is the only conservative that advocates
> drug legalization but also is anti-choice. I think you may
> classify him as a conservative with a strain of libertarianism.
> Most conservatives are pro-choice though. Many other conservatives
> who were in the Reagan Admin. and are in the Bush Admin. and
> who are commentators on TV seem to be against drug legalization
> and prostitution decriminalization and related issues. Then
> again they're in the minority on the abortion issue, they
> may be in the minority on these other issues. 

Conservatism does not equal libertarianism.  Libertarians may be pro-infan-
ticide (I usually avoid charged terms, but since you choose anti-choice...),
but conservatives are not mostly pro-choice.  If you watch CNN, you might
think that, but I know a lot of conservatives personally, and not one is
pro-choice.  Nonetheless, I reject the argument that because one rejects
government interference, he must be pro-choice and for drug legalization.
The pro-choice position ignores the rights of the unborn (who miraculously
seem to get their rights once their heads hit the light of day).  Drug le-
galization simply says "We can't win it, so why fight?"  Never mind the
fact that a low price of drugs would encourage greater consumption.  Never
mind the fact that the lack of illegality would make many people who would
otherwise be afraid to try drugs for fear of going to prison and having
their cars seized bold enough to try them "just once."  Never mind the
fact that every single time legalization has been tried (remember Needle
Park?) it has failed most miserably.
   Conservatism isn't tied to any one ideal or philosophy, and it isn't so
dogmatic that it rejects reality in favor of idealism.  I don't even at-
tempt to define conservatism other than to give examples, but I believe
that at the root, American conservatism is tied to religion.  Conserva-
tives, by and large, believe that laws and values come from absolute stan-
dards of morality as laid down by God.  Liberals believe laws come from
the shifting sands of the political process.


--
/*        Kurt Krueger | kkrueger@zeus.unomaha.edu | kkrueger@unoma1        */
From: kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski)
Subject: Re: Tax Cuts and Limbaugh Bias
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:06:02 GMT

While reading article <1992Aug12.172446.24137@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, I noticed that
cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan) said the following:
 >As far as Limbaugh bias goes, he regularly practices censorship.
 >I called the show on a Tuesday and asked to talk about the 
 >Libertarian Party. As soon as I mentioned "Libertarian Party"
 >without saying anything else, Lo Bianco told me that that topic
 >is reserved for Open Lines Friday.


This is true.  Rush likes to at least try to contain topics Monday through
Thursday to topics at least tangentially related to items currently in the news
or topics he's already discussed today.  Somewhat abstract topics like
the Libertarian Party are reserved for "Open Line Friday."

 >Then the other day I heard that he said that he's doesn't like to allow
 >avowed Libertarians to call the show because he doesn't want to discuss 
 >legalization of drugs. His attitude is the same towards
 >pro-choicers: he allowed pro-lifers to call but never
 >allows a pro-choicer to call and cross examine him.

Yes, he did lament that libertarians seem to always bring up the legalization
of drugs, but he didn't say they were forbidden to call or anything like that.

As far as pro-life or pro-choice, someone might mention a pro-life point of
view, but Rush has two topics that he refuses to discuss, namely abortion and
the Bible.

 >Apparently he doesn't want to discuss ISSUES. 

As Rush has said before, his show is event driven, not issue driven.
-- 
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"
From: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush is a Conservative! (Re: more predictions)
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:11:17 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Aug10.202652.2570@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>In article 17559@hemlock.cray.com, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>Face it.  Bush is a conservative.
>
>Righto, it only took about 10 years of their stuff to do it, too.

Actually, from 1983 to 1990 (all years under Reagan economic policy), the U.S.
added 33% to its GNP.  That is, we created another West Germany right here in
our country.  

Not until Bush compromised and signed the Democrat tax bill did the economy
go into the toilet.  Try as you might to hide or distort this, the facts
remain: conservative policies are *good* for the economy, and liberal
policies are destructive.


+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Loud-thundering Zeus     |Think globally.          |
|                         |Act locally.             |
|zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |Eat my shorts totally.   |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Media Bias?????
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:11:41 GMT



Last night, while watching the convention, I heard a sppech from Governor 
Voinovich talking about George Bush and education.  I heard speeches from Mrs. 
Quayle and Mrs. Bush about family values.  Also, I watched Lee Greenwood 
introduce seven people who had come out of poverty or conquered a handicap.  
Each one of these people thanked George Bush for allowing this to happen.

Two nights ago I heard Jack Kemp talk about the domestic policies he and Bush 
want to and have been trying to implement - the most important one being 
enterprise zones.  Kemp talked about many other things the administration wants
to do to help people become part of the working and prosperous economy.


All that said, what did I hear on NBC Today?  Furthermore, what have I heard 
since these speeches?  Nothing, except questions about Hillary Clinton and 
Buchanan's references to her.  Clinton complains Bush isn't talking about 
issues.  All I have ever heard the past few days is issues.  Does the media 
care?  Does Clinton care?  NO.  Maybe HE can't talk about issues.  Why has he 
put a piece of tape over Hillary's mouth?  What are the deathocrat's so afraid 
of????


I can't wait til the debates.  I suppose though, that they will find some way 
to bias THOSE too!
-- 
           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
             Win Twins!
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A fine opporitunity for flaming liberal flameage
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:25:09 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 77551@ut-emx.uucp, zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
>So while there is no conspiracy, there certainly is a distinct tendency to
>liberalism in the nation's newspapers.

I read an article somewhere regarding the newspaper print media's recommendations
in the past three presidential elections.  An overwhelming majority recommended
the republican ticket.  I know our local rags, San Jose Mercury and San Francisco
Chronicle are quite conservative and have always backed the conservative ticket.

---

====================================================================
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:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: boucher@roche.csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Tax Increases - A Little Truth
X-Disclaimer: The views expressed in this message are those of an
	      individual at SRI International, and do not necessarily
	      reflect those of the company.
Reply-To: boucher@roche.csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher)
Organization: SRI International, Computer Science Lab, Menlo Park, CA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:24:07 GMT


In article <16842C40F.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
> 
> Why can't you blame him?  You blame Bush for raising taxes.  The problem with
> what I might call the typical Democratic solution is that it always looks
> for more money rather than less spending.  By Clinton's own figure, his
> proposals will add over $220 billion in additional spending.  How about
> LESS SPENDING?  If a small fairly backward state (sorry razorbacks) cannot
> get its spending under current budegtary limits under Clinton, how in the
> hell is Taxbill Clinton going to control the US budget with a strong
> democratically controlled legislature?

I read an interesting article in the LA Times the other day:

"Clinton is a big spender"
   Arkansas ranks 50th in per-capita spending.

"Clinton is a big taxer"
   Arkansas ranks 49th in total per-capita state taxes (all types,
   not just income taxes).  Arkansas ranks 47th in taxes per 
   dollar-of-income-earned-by-residents.

"Clinton raised taxes 128 times as governor of Arkansas, while Bush
has raised taxes only once"
   The listing supplied by republicans is ridiculous.  It ignores several
   tax reductions (including capital gains tax reductions, and "enterprize
   zones"), and contains such things as the following:
      1) increased fuel tax counted twice (once as gas tax, once as
deisel tax).
      2) increased  alcohol tax counted as five separate tax increases
(for wine,
         beer, hard liquor, etc.).
      3) $1.00/conviction court cost fee levied on convicted criminals
         (this business-busting tax certainly has me worried  ;-)
   The reporter claimed that when the same logic that was used to claim
   that Clinton raised taxes 128 times in 11 years is applied to Bush, it shows
   that Bush raised taxes 133 times in 4 years as president.

I will not try to defend these claims.  I am only summarizing from memory
from the LA Times.  That understood, Any comments?

Peter K. Boucher    (boucher@csl.sri.com)
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: George & Jennifer
Distribution: usa
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:52:50 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <19AUG199202041611@jetson.uh.edu> wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (William M. Porter) writes:
>
> This sort of garbage is not pretty regardless of which side is throwing it. I
> trust that President Bush will not make an issue of Gov. Clinton's infidelity,
> and I hope the press can find better things to amuse itself with, as well.
>

He will be accused of doing it.  Directly or indirectly.  Yet another prediction :)
(Bush accused of making the issue ... )

> William Porter  * * * Classical Languages: University of Houston
> Internet: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu /or/ CompuServe: 75430,1351
>

--
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
From: padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton)
Subject: Drugs (was Re: Liberatarians on Limbaugh.)
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 12:56:22 GMT

In article <92225.123020DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>
>It's amazing, the two greatest problem drugs in this country are legal,
>alcohol and tobacco.  They're glorified in all sorts of media,
>bragged about laughingly by people in 'responsible' positions; "..oh sure,
>but who doesn't now and then eh?  Heh-Heh!".  Yet motor mouth contends,
>without allowing legitimate counter arguements, that if we legalize drugs
>we'll "...cause moral standards in this country to drop.".   Yes, Ed is
>right on here.  Society is falling apart; the emporor isn't wearing any
>clothes!

Now don't you suppose that the reason that alcohol and tobacco are
the two greatest problem drugs in this country are precisely
BECAUSE they are legal?

Nobody has presented any evidence that the legalization of any 
currently illicit drug would NOT cause a vast increase in the
nuber of users of that drug. I'm sure there are many people who 
are deterred from trying, say, cocaine, because it is illegal, and
because it is illegal, it is that much harder to find.

Of course, some would say that it should be the person's choice
whether or not to use cocaine. All the while saying that "well, 
alcohol and tobacco are legal, and THEY cause huge problems".
So what? Give cocaine a fair chance to cause lots of problems,
as well? Legalization may do away with some problems (drug
gangs and such), but as with alcohol, it may cause a whole slew of
more widespread intractable problems.

Peter!

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: A fine opporitunity for flaming liberal flameage
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:29:36 GMT

zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:

> [statement saying widespread supression of conservative columnists deleted]

No disagreement here, I do not have the facts (from other than this group).

>For example, I live in Austin.  Texas is not known for its rampant liberalism.
>But the city's most conservative newspaper(there are also a weekly rag and the
>campus paper) is the Austin-American Statesman.  ALL of their editorials are
>liberal, and they run at most 20% conservative columnists.  Plus, they only
>run Oliphant and Sargent editorial cartoons (both definitely liberal if you
>aren't familiar with them).  These sort of trends occur in almost every Texas
>paper I pick up.

What's your opinion of the Dallas Morning News?  Has it turned left since
the demise of the Dallas Times-Herald?  When I lived in Dallas (87-88), I
thought the DMN was pretty well balanced while the DTH was left leaning.
Of course, the DTH had much more tabloid-like headlines.  I was not suprised
to hear of the DTH's death.

Once again, in St. Louis, the local paper runs columns from Cal Thomas,
James Kilpatrick, George Will, and others as well as the more liberal ones
(Stephan Chapman, Clarence Page, Anna Quidlen, etc.).  And their editorials
are certainly left leaning.  Of the columnists (4 per day) 1 is usually
liberal, 2 moderate, and 1 conservative.  Seems pretty balanced to me.

Why don't a bunch of us look at our local papers for a week and count the
columnists they run.  I'll try, if I remember :-)  Let's get some facts.

Newspapers are in business to make money, if you would circulate petitions,
saying that if your paper would run Cal Thomas et. al. these people would
subscribe, and send it to the business people who run the paper, you might
get some action.  Showing them the number of local subscribers to the
Conservative Chronicle would probably help, too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Clinton Will Raise YOUR Taxes - NOT!
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: na, usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:01:10 GMT

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>> A few years ago my wife got really sick.   By the time she got better
>> we were $15,000 in debt.   The interest payments were nearly equal to
>> her monthly salary.

>This is not atypical of what happens to many people - but they get into
>debt by just charging their charge cards up and living beyond their
>means.  Not to belittle your situation in any way - but there is a lesson
>to be learned from your experience!

    Hmmm, what lesson is that? Are you suggesting that Tom and his wife 
were irresponsible or unwise in seeking medical attention when she got 
sick?

>> put one car "on blocks", and use the money saved to pay off debt. It 
>>took mroe than a year of scrimping to get it to the point where we were 
>>paying more capital than interest.  Now, we are finally just about out 
>>of debt.

>Now that you are out of debt - I suggest you stay that way :)

    Great advice if you're able to ensure that you will never get sick 
enough that you'd have to go into debt to get cured, but not necessarily 
comforting to someone who got sick. A year ago my future wife had a bicycle 
accident in which she nearly lost a leg. The total bills added up to around 
$15K but were fortunately mostly covered by insurance. If I would have had 
to go into debt to afford her treatment then I would have done it in a 
heartbeat (as I trust you would do if it were a member of your immediate 
family).

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Question about Clinton an
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:50:25 GMT

todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus)  writes:
>MAJ.When Clinton says he only plans to tax the rich, doe he mean individuals
>   .or is he including Corporations in this statement as well.. Coming from
>   .the party he's in I'd say both, but I'm willing to give him the benefit
>   .of the doubt, at least at present..

>Why give him any benefit?  He certainly will not give you any!  Tsk.
>What I find so frstrating is the fact that people actually believe that
>taxing the rich and the corps will help them!

    Well, to the extent that taxes collected from individuals and 
corporations are used to maintain our "infrastructure" I would say that 
taxation does, in fact, help. It helps my car that the interstates aren't
spotted with pot-holes. It helps my peace of mind that lawless criminals 
are detained by taxpayer-paid employees (policemen) and incarcerated in
taxpayer-funded prisons.

    To the extent that rich people and corporations benefit from the 
conditions of peace which we all enjoy, I would say that it is in the 
best interests of all concerned to contribute to the ongoing costs of 
keeping the system running. There is certainly room for disagreement 
over which expenditures are strictly necessary in order to keep the 
system running, and over what each individual's fair share should be,
but I'm convinced that at least some of the money collected through
taxation *is* used to help people, and I believe that rich people and 
corporations have even more vested interest than the rest of us in 
making the system work.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4611 alt.politics.clinton:2213
From: lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Tax Increases - A Little Truth
Date: 19 Aug 92 05:09:10 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: tempest.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug18.152407.18643@csl.sri.com> boucher@roche.csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher) writes:
>"Clinton is a big spender"
>   Arkansas ranks 50th in per-capita spending.

>"Clinton is a big taxer"
>   Arkansas ranks 49th in total per-capita state taxes (all types,
>   not just income taxes).  Arkansas ranks 47th in taxes per 
>   dollar-of-income-earned-by-residents.

Well, before Clinton Arkansas was 50th (Source: Article by Gene Lyons on
AR's creationism law, declared unconsitutional).
Maybe this is why the Bushies are so upset. Or
maybe it's just Republican LIES.

andy
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4747 alt.politics.clinton:2572
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Media Bias?????
Date: 22 Aug 92 03:34:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amiga makes it possible
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith

In article <1992Aug21.163318.16197@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
> The mysterious dp writes:
>
> >It would appear that the media are so accustomed to ignoring the truth until
> >they are confronted with it by someone who has a 70% approval rating in the
> >polls.  I gues that we really shouldn't be suprised when we remember that these
> >are the same TV networks that consider that 20-30 million people watching
> >"Murphey Brown" represent a majority of Americans.  Never mind that there are
> >over 200 million of us - over six times as many - that do not watch the show.
> >Never mind that 60-70% (depending on which poll you looked at) of Americans
> >SUPPORTED Dan Quayle's views on the root cause of the problems in the inner
> >cities  -  including those that live there.  Given a not so popular mouthpiece,
> >they painted a picture that the VP is some kind of rightwing conservative, out
> >of touch with mainstream America.
>
> There is a *big* difference between supporting his views on the *cause* of
> problem and supporting his views on the *solution* to the problem.
>
> It's similar to his statements about too much litigation.  I agree, there
> is too much litigation.  What is his solution?  I don't know, and he didn't
> tell me in his speech last night.
>

His proposed solution is judicial reform.


> BTW, we have positive proof here in St. Louis of the success that Jack
> Kemp's plan for tenant run public housing has had.  I hope that whoever
> wins the White House will listen to him, because he has good ideas.
> Fostering self-reliance is a *good* thing, which many Democrats need to
> learn.
>

The worst news from the convention was that Bush was going to shake up
his cabinet for his second term.  Kemp is OUT :(  Stupid move, IMO.

> Did Marilyn Quayle actually say "it's too bad Major Dad can't meet up
> with Murphy Brown?"  Major Dad is MARRIED!
>

Anyone notice that Rush was sitting next to Marilyn one of the evenings
of the convention?  RIGHT next to her.

Oh yeah, the Jane Fondle commercial was very funny.  "Left, Left, bend
to the Left, always left, never right...  Put your head against your thigh,
move it to the center - what a view" :)

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
> An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)
>
> Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
> They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
> A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
> --  Supertramp "The Logical Song"

--
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