HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party ( Was Re: Conservative Values (Re: New
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:05:46 CST


In article <mlbruce.724692887@husc11>, mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:
> 
> Oddly enough, in national elections up to 1992, the Republicans seemed to
> have done best when they could demonstrate the lines of ideological
> distinction between the parties, the Democrats doing best when those
> distinctions could be blurrer.

Or there is the "pocket book" view:

> 1972: McGovern shown to be in far left-- Nixon wins easily.
  1972: Economy growing (voters happy) -> Nixon re-elected.

> 1976: 2 moderates, Carter wins.
  1976: inflation & recession (voters unhappy) -> Carter wins.

> 1980-1984: Reagan eludicates conservative principles well, wins landslides.
  1980: inflation & recession (voters unhappy) -> Reagan wins.
  1984: Economy growing (voters happy) -> Reagan re-elected.

> 1988: Dukakis finally admits to being Liberal, Bush wins on Reagan coattails.
  1988: Economy growing (voters happy) -> Bush (on Reagan legacy) wins.
  1992: Economy sucks (voters unhappy) -> Clinton wins.

> With the Bush loss, this oversimplification needs to be modified in two
> ways: first, traditional Republican conservatism gets votes, but religious
> extremism does not. When Bush, a moderate at heart, needed to shore up his
> conservative base, he reached well past mainstream conservatives into the
> "God's country" religious right. There is a difference: one can have
> conservative economic principles, believe in a strong America regarding
> foreign policy, and even lean to social conservatism without trying to
> forcibly convert the entire populace to fundamentalist Christianity.
> Second: ideological distinctions aren't enough if the leader/candidate
> does not have a strong grasp of his views and the ability to communicate
> his vision eloquently. That was Reagan's biggest strength, Bush's biggest
> weakness.

I think the basic reality is that people vote with their wallets.  If the 
economy is better than 4 years ago, the re-elect the incumbant.  If the 
economy is worst, they elect the challenger.

The Democrats were never going to win the White House until the Republicans
screwed up the economy.  The Republicans will not reclaim the White House
until the Democrats screw up the economy (worse than Bush did).

> One can only hope, based on the above, that Jack Kemp wins the '96 nomination.

Can Kemp beat out Quayle for the '92 Rep nomination?  It is hard to beat a former
VP for the nomination.  Quayle will have a hard time winning, because he'll have
to run on Bush's record.  Since I don't think the economy will be worse in 4 years
than it is now, I think Kemp should wait until 2000 and let Quayle get beat in '96.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re:  Sometimes I wonder about you peoples
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:52:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.135213.17876@athena.mit.edu> gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez) writes:
>Gosh Emil, you are so witty.  Because of your sharp wit
>I have been reconverted, I am a slimly liberal again.  
>I have a question for you, did you amuse yourself?  
>Maybe you are the one that should go out and meet 
>members of the opposite sex--your sexual frustration is
>evident to everyone on the net.  

This has to be nominated for Post of the Week. :)


===================================================================
-Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino)
Subject: The Religious Right (was: Somalia
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 18:04:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec13.100940.2620@news.columbia.edu> dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
>I wrote:
>>>Cat, the Republican Party, contrary to your misconception, is not entirely
>>>composed of Pat Robertson's followers (or Pat Buchanan's, for that matter.)
>>
>>No, not entirely.  Just mostly. 
>
>   We can tell how many Republicans like Pat Buchanan, based on the
>results of his bid for the presidency; he got perhaps 25% of the
>Republicans to vote for him.  As for Pat Robertson, I would guess he
>claims about the same.  The Religious Right, as it is called, does not
>constitute a majority of the party, otherwise we would have seen Pat
>R. come close to nomination at some point.  My personal experience,
>having met a wide variety of Republicans, I can say maybe about 10%
>felt a strong affinity with either man.

USAToday took a poll at the Republican convention and found that a majority
(I believe ~54%) of the delegates would consider themselves "born-again
Christians."

Scary food for thought.

Tino
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10133 talk.abortion:51999
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion will never be criminalized. (WAS rights and responsibilities)
Date: 15 Dec 92 04:50:00 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

And here's why.  The anti-choice/anti-abortion/pro-life crowd doesn't 
really want to end legal abortion.  If they did, two things would happen.  
First they'd lose their reason for existance as the  
anti-choice/anti-abortion/pro-life crowd and second, (and most importantly) 
the revenue stream would dry up.  No cause, no way to raise money to 
support the cause.  These folks have gone way beyond 'saving babies.' 
that's only there as window dressing for the faithful.  The real issues now 
are money and power.  Look at the fund-raising that goes on to support 
pro-life agendae, look at the power structure that folks like Pat Robertson 
are building.  You think that's about 'saving babies?'  Well, of course, 
that's what they want you to think.  It's really about a very profitable 
theocracy with Pat Robertson or someone very much like him as God's 
appointed.

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 05:37:13 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <11DEC199222450270@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
]
]	It's even more fascinating to realise that the military will allow
]Homosexuals in when a draft is imposed, that is, when the country may 
]indeed be in real military danger.  
Oh really? Open gays have been prohibitted in the military since long
before the Vietnam War, which certainly had a draft.
]
]	The argument is that they need every bit of help they can get.
]
]	But with all the worry about Gays distroying morale and combat ef-
]fectiveness, I would think that those opposed to Gays would think them
]more of a risk in draft/wartime, when the consequences of combat ineffect-
]iveness are more dire.
Snicker. Amazing how absurd you can get when you start with bad information!


-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
 - - If a field of study has the word "science" in it - it isn't a science - -
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:28:24 GMT

elliott@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Jr. Frank W. Elliott) writes:

>>Not true.  Except for an occasional screw-up (play on words unintended), the
>>military has not knowingly drafted, enlisted, or commissioned anyone whom
>>they knew to be homosexual.  Those who are later found to be such are quickly
>>separated.  Admittedly, my experience only goes back three decades so I

>Actually this is false.  Sgt. Perry Watkins (sp.?) was kept in the army
>(I believe) several years after he publicly proclaimed that he was homosexual.
>Moreover, during the Gulf War several gays and lesbians who were
>discovered were kept in until the fighting was over.  They can be
>cannon fodder, but they can't have careers.

This is one of the screw-ups I was alluding to earlier.  My
understanding of this case is that when he filled out his reenlistment
contract he marked the block declaring his homosexuality.  However as
sometimes happens with other disqualifying factors, the declaration was
lost in the mountains of administrivia associated with the processing
of military contracts.  In other words, someone simply failed to do his
job.

This is the first I'd heard anything about individuals being held in
service until the fighting was over.  My initial reaction is that
involuntary separation, though done relatively quickly, may often take
several weeks, especially for those who are temporarilly assigned to
overseas combat areas.  Since the Iraq "war" was very short, it seems
quite reasonable that anyone being involuntarily discharged for any
reason might not be out the door before the fighting ended.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Humphrey/Mondale
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Dec 92 12:49:42 CST


In article <1992Dec14.075702.12428@mr.med.ge.com> gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg
4-6983) writes:

> Lastly, I suppose when liberals think of churches, they think of televangelists,
> like Jim and Tammy Baker.

You "suppose"?  Come on Felix you're constructing a strawman.

Note that Walter Mondale's dad was a minister...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Abortion will never be criminalized. (WAS rights and responsibilities)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:57:00 GMT

> 
>Doesn't this belong in alt.conspiracy? This line of thinking is for people 
>that are too shallow to believe that other points of view exist.
> 
No, it doesn't.  alt.conspiracy is an area you would avoid, and I'm talking 
to you.  I'm not sure how you have decided that I'm 'too shallow to believe 
that other points of view exist,' maybe that's a topic for another day.  
But don't continue to get me wrong, I don't claim for a moment that the 
thousands of pro-choice people are pro-choice (although I have my own ideas 
about why, and they *aren't* conspiratorial), I know they are.  But they're 
just playing out their role in the whole tableau.  It's not them I'm 
accusing, it's the leadership.  See?

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: tim@kudzu.viewlogic.com (Tim Foster)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: The Religious Right (was: Somalia
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:11:53 GMT
Organization: Viewlogic Systems, Inc.
Originator: tim@kudzu


In article <1992Dec13.180445.3366@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, constant@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Tino) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec13.100940.2620@news.columbia.edu> dnm9@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (David Neal Messina) writes:
|> >I wrote:
|> >>>Cat, the Republican Party, contrary to your misconception, is not entirely
|> >>>composed of Pat Robertson's followers (or Pat Buchanan's, for that matter.)
|> >>
|> >>No, not entirely.  Just mostly. 
|> >
|> >   We can tell how many Republicans like Pat Buchanan, based on the
|> >results of his bid for the presidency; he got perhaps 25% of the
|> >Republicans to vote for him.  As for Pat Robertson, I would guess he
|> >claims about the same.  The Religious Right, as it is called, does not
|> >constitute a majority of the party, otherwise we would have seen Pat
|> >R. come close to nomination at some point.  My personal experience,
|> >having met a wide variety of Republicans, I can say maybe about 10%
|> >felt a strong affinity with either man.
|> 
|> USAToday took a poll at the Republican convention and found that a majority
|> (I believe ~54%) of the delegates would consider themselves "born-again
|> Christians."
|> 
|> Scary food for thought.

It's not quite clear why you think this statistic is "scary food
for thought".  Would you mind explaning?

|> Tino
|> -- 
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|>               Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 

Tim Foster 
E-mail: tfoster@viewlogic.com 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
From: ivaliote@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Lotus )
Subject: Re: The Religious Right (was: Somalia
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:36:03 GMT

tim@kudzu.viewlogic.com (Tim Foster) writes:
>|> USAToday took a poll at the Republican convention and found that a majority
>|> (I believe ~54%) of the delegates would consider themselves "born-again
>|> Christians."
>|> Scary food for thought.
>It's not quite clear why you think this statistic is "scary food
>for thought".  Would you mind explaning?
I will bite the bullet and answer this one with an honest, overgeneralized 
opinion.  Most of the bron-again Christians I have met in my life (and they
were self described as such, and have numbered at least 100, with levels of
familiarity ranging from passing to close friendship) have been, at one level,
somewhat irrational in their political views and rather prone to endorse 
legislation that enforces the 'right' view, God's view, which happens to be
theirs as well.

I don't mean to say this is true of the Christians who post here.  I may well
have gotten a bad batch.  Just tellin' what I saw.

>|> Tino
>|>               Pay off the national debt -- Tax the Church
>Tim Foster 
>E-mail: tfoster@viewlogic.com 
______________
Matt Ivaliotes				a.k.a. Lotus
ivaliote@ux1				lotus@uiuc 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.forum
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:13:25 CST


In article <BzBL42.4wC@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <92350.145137KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> 
> >Why do we need a moderated group?  There are intelligent liberals here, who
> >help stimulate thought.  The stupid ones are easy to ignore (or flame, which-
> >ever is your preference. :)
> 
> It still creates noise.  If we can have a moderated soc.feminism
> group, we can have a moderated group for conservatism.
> 
> My question is why does it need to be called "alt.conservative.forum?"
> Couldn't it have a more intelligent name, like
> "alt.politics.conservative?"

or "alt.politically.correct.conservatives" which would describe what the 
group is about.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Rush being censored???
Keywords: rush, censorship, tv
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:20:39 GMT

In article <BzB3D0.233q@austin.ibm.com> jpietro@perelandra.austin.ibm.com writes:
>Here in Austin, TX, we get to watch Rush's TV show on KBVO, FOX 42,
>weekdays at 12:00 noon (yes, NOON!), the day after it's taped.  This,
>of course, means we see Friday's show on Monday.
>
>Last Friday's show, in particular, had a segment where a group of
>children were "pledging their allegiance" to Rush.  There was one line
>that went as follows:
>
>   "...one conservative, just like ___..."
>
>The word following "like" ("God" I presume) was cut from the audio
>portion of the tape.  You could see the children mouth the word, but
>no sound whatsoever.
>
>Did this happen everywhere?  I'm curious if this was local censorship,
>or if Rush did this to himself.  I seriously doubt the latter.

It happened on both the stations that carry Rush's show in southern 
California, so either Rush did it, there were some satellite problems,
or the tape had a flaw. That was a cute bit, although the most impressive
video was the 7-year old kid reading from Rush's book (thanks to 
Hooked on Phonics, if I remember right).
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Summary: Ho ho ho...huh?
Date: 14 Dec 92 02:35:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Dec13.214123.24759@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Jim Shirreffs writes:
>
>Since I will not be able to post for a while (Going Home to Texas!!!)

Looks like you're knee-deep in it already -- last time I looked,
jsc.nasa.gov *was* here in Houston.  :-)

>I just wanted to wish you *all* a Merry Christmas. At least to whose of you who
>haven't placed me in a "kill file". I have very much enjoyed this news group.
>And although I can't post from my home system I can read, so I will be following
>what goes on here. 
>
>Do you know how the angel got on top of the Christmas Tree?
>
>Well, one day santa was getting ready for Christmas and there was 
>a terrible strom. All his reindeer ran away and all his presents 
>got scatered about. He was out in the wind and the cold and the 
>dark tring to get everything put back into his sleigh when along 
>comes and angel and asks "Santa what do you want me to do with 
>this Christmas tree" And that's how the angel got on top of 
>the Christmas tree.
>
>Merry Christmas.
>
>jim shirreffs

Have a merry one, too...and are you sure that angel didn't work in Houston
in the late '70s and early '80s?  Sounds like someone at a couple of places
I've worked...:-)

--PLH, and one of those places *isn't* Rice



-- 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:56:00 GMT

>KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) says:
>>tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) says:
>>>Certainly please don't think that I'm knocking the man....after all
>>>he is getting rich being a bigot...and I still have to work for a
>>>living.

>>You know, I never get tired of these idiots who never listen to Rush coming
>>in and making their stupid little ad hominem attacks on him.

    I passed this one by the first time around, I guess because I was 
trying to not honor the original post with a reply. But it has just now 
occurred to me that what Kurt has said is true for me too. I skip lots 
and lots of articles in this group, but I generally read every one with 
a subject like "Rush Limbaugh Eats Worms". I can see that, as with the 
traveling preacher Brother Jed Smock, Rush himself is only half of the 
real "Limbaugh Spectacle".

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dprjdg@inetg1.ARCO.COM (John Grasham)
Subject: Virgin Forests? (was Re: Life Under Clinton/Gore)
Organization: ARCO Oil and Gas Company
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:51:46 GMT


Paul A. Lane says in

> By the way, the timber industry is all wet. There is a finite amount of
> virgin forest. When it is gone, the logging jobs will be lost but there
> will be no forest left. On the other hand, if we stop logging these
> forests now, the jobs will be gone but the forest will still be there.
> It's a resource that will be consumed.

> The questions is: do we want to find training & jobs for these men &
> women
> now or later? The most intelligent solution would be to ban the export
> of
> raw timber. Saves the jobs and the forests.

From Consumer Reports, Nov 1992, article: "Are you a Green Consumer?"

"Trees used for paper are usually grown on tree farms and harvested at
sustainable rates."

The article goes on to say that recycling paper saves on land-fill space,
BUT DOES NOT SAVE TREES.

There is no reason to assume that "the resource will be consumed".  Men
and women in the logging industry are not stupid and do not intend to
clear-cut themselves out of jobs.  It is a fact that they plant as many
or more trees than they harvest.

Trees are a crop that require a longer growth period than wheat, but are
just as much a plant that can and should be harvested ... unless we want
to start calling for vegetable rights.

Can't you hear it now?  "DON'T EAT BREAD!  SAVE THE WHEAT!"



John G.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: birmingh@fnalo.fnal.gov (Phillip J. Birmingham)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberals are imature (appology)...
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:12:54 -0600
Organization: Blackriver Recorporations, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalo.fnal.gov

In article <1992Dec17.210409.10276@u.washington.edu>, ryanm@stein.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:
> Now I say that it appears that many liberals are effected by
>    [childishness]
> :-).  (Duck! Flames inbound)  --Ryan

         No, we're not, you right-wing bigoted Nazi! :-)

         ARE NOT ARE NOT ARE NOOOOOTTTT!
-- 
 Phillip J. Birmingham   birmingh@fnal.fnal.gov  
 I don't speak for Fermilab, although my mouth is probably big enough...
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh