HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:03:07 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> In article <Petch-151092084435@oboe.gvg.tek.com>, Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch) writes:
> 
> |> If you will remember back to the primaries, Rush was urging people to vote
> |> for Buchanan in order to send George Bush a wake-up call.
> 
> 	I remember back in the primaries, when Rush was taking heat all
> over he place for not supporting Pat Buchannan. Rush has been a Bush fan
> since the beginning.

You're a little confused, here, Alex; it was PEROT supporters who were
giving Rush flack about not being on their side. Rush REPEATEDLY urged
voters to go with Buchannan. Not that he thought Pat could win; but Bush
needed to LISTEN to Buchannan, and Bush had (and still has) his head in
the sand. 

> 
> |> 	. If he had listened to Rush four years ago, the economy wouldn't
> |> be in the toilet and he would be riding a landslide to reelection. In
> |> short, there is no correlation between Rush's rise and Bush's fall. Bush
> |> did it all by himself despite Rush's excellent advice and constant warnings
> |> over the airwaves.
> 
> 	I don't think that the economy is the only issue. The convention made
> a large segment of the public cough hairballs, and the economy makes them
> less willing to forgive that.
> 	
The economy is the PRIMARY issue, though, as poll after poll has told us. 


> 	The hard line on abortion cost Bush votes.
> 	The hard line on gays cost bush votes.
> 	The hard line on anything-not-republican cost bush votes.
> 
> If the economy was going great, then people would be willing to overlook
> that stuff, but with the economy in a slump, even republicans are bailing
> like rats from a sinking ship.

yeah, and I guess the thing I understand LEAST is, why re they going for a
man who promises them more of the same? 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:55:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.075103.1222@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Perhaps I am the challenger here, but there must be others that feel the same
>way I do.   I cannot accept that I am the only person who belives that the
>unborn have a right to live.

You're not the only one - I agree with you... *they* just try and make you 
feel that way - which is pretty easy to do here on Usenet and in liberal-
media-land.  Don't get discouraged.
-Paul
--
---
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Originator: news@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:50:29 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <ldp5siINNss7@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>In article <98654@bu.edu>, tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:
>|> Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.
>|> Most people have trouble believing Clinton (indeed, it's the cover story 
>|> of this week's Time Magazine) and Dan kept hammering the issue.  "Do you really
>|> trust Clinton to be President?"  I think most would answer "no".  And he and
>|> the Admiral had Gore running away from his book on the environment (supposedly
>|> his strong point), making him look like an extremist.  yeah, he exaggerated
>|> with the facts, but so did Gore.  Gore looked so stiff.  How many times did
>|> you hear "Bill Clinton and I think ...." at the beginning of a sentence?
>|> 
>|> This is NOT to say that Quayle is a good VP or that Bush is a good president.
>|> But reading the papers today, you have to believe that either 1) they watched
>|> a different debate, or 2) they are biased.  I mean, it wasn't even close.
>
>Obviously you watched a different debate.  Dan ducked questions and hammered
>at the "who do you trust theme," Al answered questions and asked about the
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Bush record, and the Admiral had the best seat of any spectator in the house.

Which debate did *you* watch. I watched one with an exchange that went
something like this:

"Senator, do you support a 24 hour waiting period on abortions?"

"Um... I think that we should..."

"Senator, do you support a 24 hour waiting period on abortions?"

"The real issue is..."

"Senator, do you support a 24 hour waiting period on abortions?"

Gore never answered the question.


							- greg
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7153 alt.rush-limbaugh:7154
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What is a conservative
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:42:16 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

George Bush is ANYTHING BUT a conservative; he's a "stealth Liberal", a
"deep-penetration mole" from the far left. he is trying, and has succeeded
beyond his wildest dreams, to destroy real conservatism and the Republican
party. 

Anybody who thinks Bush is a conservative probably thinks that Jane Fonda
is a moderate. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 17 Oct 92 03:13:24 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
> >
> >Veeeeeeeery Goooooooood!  Don't forget, the more taxes you pay, (because you 
> >have gotten RICHER??!!) the more REVENUE, and thus the more money for the 
> >government to SPEND.
> 
> I never forgot that. It's just to the individual taxpayer that tidbit of
> information don't mean jack. Especially to the middle and lower classes.
> 

No, Zack, only idiots feel this way. 

> >>
> >>Yes, I most certainly do call what happened in Reaganomics during Reagan's
> >>and Bush's tenures as a TAX CUT, as that is EXACTLY what is was.
> >
> >Huh?  You just said above that more taxes were being paid!  The RATES were cut.
> >The TAX DOLLARS were not.

> 
> Susan, how many times do I need to say it? To the individual taxpayer, their
> tax IS the RATE. Not how much revenue the government collects from everyone
> in their tax bracket. And that tax went DOWN for the rich under Reagan/Bush
> and for everyone else that tax went UP. I guess you must like paying higher
> taxes.

You can say it till the cows come home, Zack, and it STILL won't be true.
To MOST people (and to ALL intelligent people) the primary concern is the
size of their tax bill. NOT the "rate"; the dollar amount. For thie rich,
that dollar amount skyrocketed during the economic boom times, and has
fallen dramatically since Bush caved in to the Dems and passed the tax
increase. 

Get it through your pointy little head, Zack; you can't have employEES
without employERS. You can't have capitalISM without capitalISTS. 

And no, you seem to have TOTALLY missed the point (as all Clinton
supporters invariably do); we DON'T like paying higher taxes. That's why
we're mad at Bush, who RAISED THEM. And that's why we're even MADDER at
Clinton, who promises to RAISE THEM AGAIN! 

The Bush/Darman/Rostenkowski tax hikes of 1990 are at least 90%
responsible for the recession that began IN THE VERY MONTH that Bush
promised to raise taxes. If, God forbid, Clinton is elected and raises
taxes again, we'll see the worst depression in recorded history. 

And I'll say "I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!"

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 05:27:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.013258.6779@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>
>When you PREVENT pregnancy, an individual blueprint for life is not
>terminated... because one was never made in the first place!
>
>Geez. I don't know how people can't understand simple logic.
>
The problem is that the right to life *movement* is dominated by people who
are not talking about preventing pregnancies, but about preventing
abortions.  The key event for them is conception, not implantation--which
is what you are talking about when you talk about "pregnancy."

The leading forces of the RTL movement would disagree with your statements
about preventing pregnancy.  Some would disagree about the validity of
preventing conception.  This is one of the reasons we have so damn many
abortions in this country:  the RTL movement opposes birth control in its
most common and effective forms.

Another reason is that the tort system and drug company abuses have
resulted in very high costs for contraception.  Unless we are willing to
have safe, reliable contraception, people are going to become pregnant when
they don't want to be, and that will lead to abortion.



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gjh@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Galen J. Hekhuis)
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: 13 Oct 92 03:08:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Virginia Health Sciences Center

In article <1992Oct12.210431.9810@jetsun.weitek.COM> nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf) writes:
}In article <1992Oct12.170749.23176@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:
}
}>Before your baby is born try to use him/her as a tax deduction. Let us know
}>how you make out. One more time---the pro-choice position has been and is
}>that the woman has a choice to have an abortion if she desires BUT late term
}>abortions should only be allowed unless to save the life of the mother. One 
}
}Speak for yourself, white man. Some of us believe that the woman's health,
}including mental health, are important. Others of us believe that in cases
}of rape or incest, late abortions should be an option.

As your local extremist, I'd like to point out that some of us don't favor
any restrictions whatsoever...

--
       hang gliding mailing list: hang-gliding-request@virginia.edu 
     Galen Hekhuis  UVa Health Sci Ctr (804)982-1646 gjh@virginia.edu
                   We are the Cro-Magnon of the future!
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6843 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5086
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Principles, principles, principles
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:17:55 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services


 
>    Well, don't get carried away. I try to read enough to understand
> something about war. As C.P. Snow noted, the lack of knowledge about
> war usually results in tragedy. But I'm not a "hawk" by any means. If
> wars can be avoided then it behooves us to do what we can to avoid it.
> Sometimes we don't have a choice and we have to fight, but in many
> cases we've been fortunate enough to be able to pick the battlefields to
> which we send our forces and in those cases I think we'd do well to pick
> the battlefields where we get the most advantage for each life lost.
> I still think that 50,000 was too high a body count for what we got out
> of that war.
Well, I agree with you about "picking our battlefields"; my wife has a
posyer that says "Successful dragon slayers choose their dragons VERY
carefully!", which is the same principle. 

But I disagree that 50,000 lives was too much to pay for what we
accomplished in Viet Nam. We certainly could have accomplished much more
with a smaller sacrifice if we'd prosecuted the war properly, but we DID
stop the communist expansion in southeast Asia, and Soviet client states
never again picked a fight directly with the U.S. It may have been a North
Viet namese "victory", but it was a hollow one. 

A few people assert that we accomplished nothing, that the NVN army would
have stopped anyway, that the collapse of communist insurgencies in
Indonesia and Malaysia  and Thailand had nothing to do with us. Again,
they're like the Christian Scientists denying the efficacy of medication;
they're welcome to believe what they like, but I know they're wrong. 

We lost the battle, but we won the war. And that's all that REALLY counts. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dash@skyy.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (O.P.P)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Reply-To: dash@skyy.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:32:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.010125.10541@seq.uncwil.edu>, session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
|> kgirodias@azcc.arizona.edu writes:
|> 
|> >>>     This is the same Bill Clinton who, while at Oxford, sought
|> >>>information on either obtaining dual citizenship or obtaining
|> >>>British citizenship.
|> >> 
|> >> There is absolutely no proof of these charges whatsoever. And Monday night
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >> on live TV, Clinton denied the allegations.
    
           NEWS FLASH!!!!  Even though I have no proof whatsoever,
           (In my best B1 BOB voice) I think Bill Clinton dresses
           in women's clothing when he goes home at night.
           If Bill Clinton would just come clean on this subject,
           then let the American people decide. Is this the kind
           of man we want as Commander-in-Chief? I don't think so.

                                       O.P.P

           Bush  4 more months.
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:57:09 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <98654@bu.edu>, tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes) writes:
> Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.

 OH man - here we go - why is it that conservatives seem incapable of
realizing that because someone disagrees with you or does not share your
particular bias it does not mean they are impartial or biased? 

> Most people have trouble believing Clinton (indeed, it's the cover story 
>of this week's Time Magazine) and Dan kept hammering the issue.  "Do you really
> trust Clinton to be President?"  I think most would answer "no".  And he and

 I think most would answer "No - but then again I don't trust George Bush
either and frankly his 4 years as president have sucked and so I could care
less about this issue - what I want to hear is what ol George intends to
do now that he didn't do for 4 years and I'd like to know why he didn't
do it in these past 4 years" - that's what I think most truly impartial
observers would say...


> the Admiral had Gore running away from his book on the environment (supposedly
> his strong point), making him look like an extremist.  

 Stockdale did little but make you feel sorry for him and make the others
look good.

					gln
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:39:39 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <6623@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>, rovero@oahu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:

|> >Do you mean the $100 million Marshall plan?  Quayle lied about that.
|> >You mean the 
|> >
|> 
|> Gore was demolished on his book.  It states clearly that "we" need a
|> $100 BILLION (not million) PER YEAR (not total) "environmental Marshall
|> plan".  Yeah, he says other countries will have to contribute, but still
|> says the US will be responsible for the lion's share of the cost.

	Don't stop - he also says that the US cannot afford the marshal plan
unless the economy changes a whole bunch. In short - he knows that the 
money isn't there, and he doesn't think that he can tax it out of the public.

|> Add Gore's wildest spending dreams to Clinton's hallucinatory spending
|> dreams.

	Yup. It's a dream, and Al Gore knows it. At least he can tell
dreams from reality.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: The Limbaugh Poll
Keywords: A slight trend
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:04:09 GMT

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

>checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte) writes:

>>Listening to Rush today, I noticed that he was taking a poll on who is lining
>>up for who for the election.
>>Well, the count was still under way but, his poll showed a 91% run for Bush, a
>>4% + for Willy, and a 4% + for the Parrot.
>>
>>Amazing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>	What is amazing is that there really are dittoheads who will put more
>stock in this poll then any of the media polls, and conclude that Bush will
>win by a landslide.

I think you miss the point (which, honestly, doesn't suprise me).  The point
is that polls don't tell the TRUTH!  Listen to the sources of the polls
reported on the regular news, and then go ask your nearby statistics professer,
how the LA Times (for example) can poll less than 800 people (over the phone,
or in a mall, or however), take into account the electorial college, and
the fact that people don't vote in the mall, or over the phone and STILL
have the audacity to report the figures with a 4% MARGIN OF ERROR like 
they are telling you how everyone in America thinks.  I have seen the
actual statistics used, along with the assumptions that have to be made,
and I think that whoever is polling can make the outcome look however
they want.  For example, If I wanted it to look like a candidate that 
is gonna take several small states is doing better than he really is,
I would poll my 800 people (16 from each state), if 'my' candidate'
was going to do much better in a big state (California), then I would
poll my people more in-line with the electorial college votes.

The point is, the person polling can change the outcome depending on
what they want the outcome to be.  That's why conervatives can find
polls that say Bush is leading (WR poll, which hasn't ever been wrong
in picking a president (36 yrs) says Bush has 55%) and liberals (LA times,
have ones saying Clinton leads.  BTW... Has anyone out there ever BEEN POLLED?
I would love to know how you where approached/chosen as a potential voter?

Chad

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:04:59 GMT


To paraphrase your comments: You said that my attitudes seemed "callous"
towards the woman involved--actually I am not.  I never said anything against
a woman's right to decide for herself.  I am against abortion being discussed
as the only option.

Ok, flame away.....

Simon                The last Conservative on the net.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The end of the world on USENET-There will be flamewars and rumors of flamewars
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7529 alt.politics.clinton:10723 alt.politics.bush:9351
From: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Democrats: READ it and WEEP!
Summary: It becomes clear
Keywords: Liberals are wincing
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:47:54 GMT
Reply-To: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: flyboy.ebay.sun.com


>A good point.  The official trade surplus statistics only include 
>manufactured goods.  I've read a few articles recently that have suggested 
>that if services and consulting that US firms supply to foriegn nations 
>were included in these figures that we might actually have a surplus.  One 
>example would be all the money that Red Adair and his firefighters made in 
>Kuwait.

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

Excellent data Mark,
These facts now being exposed are exactly what the liberal media wants to hide
from us.  More of this will come out as the election draws near.
The liberal Democrats know about this information. They do not want you or I 
to have any knowledge in this area.  The reason?
They know that this country is poised for another ecomonic resurgence.
They know that the liberal Demos had nothing to do with it's rebound.
This is what Rush has been saying for quite awhile, as well as Bush.
What the Democratic librals want is to be in a position, (presidency) to
lap up the acknowledgements for doing such a wonderful job saving this 
country.

Al Conte
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: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 18:07:18 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes ...
>In article <1992Oct6.201239.4480@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>
>>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.
>>
>Bad argument again (like many from your side), since many children and 
>teens likewise will not develop into adults.

Like many from your side your ability to read what was written is
pretty bad.  It wasn't my argument.  Read the article I was responding
to then come up with an intelligent response.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:22:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.165055.8575@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.170602.18268@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>
>And with the current economy, a product of that highly
>intelligent conservative government we have, the one that
>

	Why who has the most control over our economy? It's congress isn't it?
Isn't congress mostly democrat? Now that I've corrected that little 
misconception of yours, you can replace 'conservative' with 'liberal' and you
will be insulting the democrats. That would suggest you certainly shouldn't
vote for a democrat for president. 
	Just something I noticed.