HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett)
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?  YES!!!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:47:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.201411.8203@cs.tulane.edu> lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
>
>In article <1e0vn9INNq5t@transfer.stratus.com>, dennist@sw.stratus.com (Dennis Tetreault) writes:
>
>>    Something happened though. After the election results came in, and 
>> the Clinton's stood up on stage, and were joined by the Gore family, Al
>> pulled a Quayle. While leaning off the stage to shake hands with the supporters,
>> Al fell head first into the crowd. There was a photo of a Secret Service
>> agent trying to keep him from falling off by holding his belt. I can't say
>> for certain that he *did* fall in, but I think he did. 
>
>No, as a matter of fact, he didn't.  After he finished talking to whomever
>that was in the crowd, he got up and went over to the other side of the
>stage.  GORE DID NOT FALL INTO THE CROWD.
>
>Let's stop this rumor now, before it gets out of hand.

   Why?  If it had been a false rumor about Dan Quayle, you would have
actively encouraged its spread.  Turnabout is fair play; let's spread
as many vicious rumors about AlGore Ozehole as we can.  

>Ray Lang
>lang@cs.tulane.edu

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
--------------------------------------------------
From: mk009b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu ([Matt Kaufman])
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Election '92
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:27:41 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1992Nov4.233530.19283@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:

>In article 1d7q8sINNb7f@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu, andersmc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU () writes:
>>To the American People,
>>	What do you have in mind? Are all of us crazy?  
>>
>>	We just elected Billary Clinton.... I mean Hill Clinton... whoops
>>	I mean Bill Clinton and Mr. Ozone.    Hmmmmm....
>>
>>Does Bill have a mandate?  NO!!!!  He did not take a majority of the American
>>people. 
>>I hope to GOD that I'm wrong when I say that this countryturned the wrong
>>corner.
>>
>>Anyway... Gotta think positively!  Any one for Canada?

>You needn't worry.  You are wrong.

>America has finally shown some intelligence after 12 years of stupidity.
>Hopefully now, America will be strong.


Strong, get real.  He'll take our cash, kick us in the ass, and then blame
Reagan and Bush.


>---
>===============================================================================
>Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
>internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
>uucp:		lsil!msako
>RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
>Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
>		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
>		my management or my mother
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: To JRS et.al-coexist
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:44:15 GMT

In article <LDTZTB3w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>
: If you want to read some REAL un-patriotic, un-american statments I suggest
: you look up Rep. Maxine Waters' statements in the wake of the LA riots.  That
: this woman has not been impeached for conduct unbecoming a Representative is
: symptomatic of what is wrong with the Congress.

	What did Ms. Waters say that was so *HORRIBLE*, for Zeus's sake?

>On the other hand, if we could get more people like Waters in congress, maybe
>people would get so disgusted with the whole freak show that they'd simply
>shoot all 535 of them.

	But who would be the ones who elected them? Unless, of course,
it was a choice between two bozos in every case.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:56:20 GMT

In article <mjenkins.720967796@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>In <1992Nov5.034239.3528@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
>
>
>
>>Since George is on his way out, we will no longer need alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
>>alt.rush-limbaugh, or alt.politics.bush.  I will be sending out the
>>rmgroups for these three groups.  Also, since Clinton is now president,
>>I will create alt.president.clinton.  Since the volume should be large,
>>we'll hold on to alt.politics.clinton for a while.
>
>Forget it! You think that just because Bush is no longer in power that
>suddenly none of us are going to be interested in what Rush has to
>say?!

Hmm.  Did you notice the talk.bizarre and the misc.test in the
follow-up line?  Guess not.

Looks like our buddies over in t.b. are at it again with the
newbie/misc.test baiting!

>
>Keep the Limbaugh groups. If you wanna kill something, try
>alt.fan.dan-quayle.

May that group rest in peace!



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Turn out the lights as you leave...
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:47:55 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harry Tuttle) writes:

>Well, Now that PRESIDENT CLINTON will be in the White House, I imagine
>that ole Rush Limburger should be on the last train to Dinosaur Land.
>I'll miss Rush when he's gone. 

Rush will not be going anywhere, he will enjoy the next four years
of disaster MR. CLINTON will bring to Washington.  When he starts
screwing up, he will be the first to say "I told you, I told you".

>Hey folks.  The eighties are over.  Get on with your lives.  Rush, I
>hope you enjoyed your fifteen minutes of fame. Now maybe you and Danny
>Quayle can go cry in your collective beers somewhere.

Yes the 1980's are over,  They were great years, full of potential and
prospects for those who TRIED and worked hard for it.  I did very well,
and would not trade my success or financial gain during the time for
anything.

>I hope the far right wing of the Republican party (Rush included) can
>comprehend what this election said.  

The right-wing of the party has a lot of growing and understanding to
do, I will grant you this.

>No, you do not represent the views of mainstream America.

There are many different definitions of "mainstream".

>No, we do not care whether Clinton was in Vietnam or not.

YOU may not, I still want to know what he did to avoid service
in Southeast Asia.

>Yes, we do care if our President and his party has lost touch with
>reality and common sense.

I do not think there are many in MR. CLINTON's party who can claim
common sense on their resumes.  All the opposition kept saying was
we need change, we need change.  The can be negative change as well
as positive change.

>Bye, bye Rush.  You probably don't read these posts, but I guess now
>you'll have lots of time to.  The pink slip is on its way...

Rush does not read the Internet, but would read mail sent to him at
70277.2502@compuserve.com.

Rush Limbaugh has been very successful in his career, and he has
a strong and loyal following.  Do not right him off, not anyone
who supports President Bush and the Republican Party.

See you in 1996.




-- 
David De Trolio - (detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
--------------------------------------------------
Reagan-Bush 1980-1988 + Bush-Quayle 1988-1992
Twelve Years of Strong American Leadership
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
X-Xxdate: Fri, 13 Nov 92 16:12:14 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:15:34 GMT

In article <BxoBI8.39r@news.iastate.edu> Marc N. Barrett,
barrett@iastate.edu writes:
>   All of this leads me to the solid conclusion that conservatives
>are the real guarantors of First Amendment Rights in the U.S.  Liberals
>support other people's First Amendment rights only when the speach 
>agrees with them.  Liberals have concocted a large number of terms 
>like "political correctness" in attempt to stifle the First Amendment
>rights of people with opposing viewpoints.  Political incorrectness
>**IS** fully protected by the First Amendment, but liberals refuse to
>accept this.  Conservatives, however, always respect the First Amendment
>rights of everybody, regardless of opposing viewpoints.
>
>   Liberals are no more the guarantors of the First Amendment than
>totalitarians are the guarantors of personal freedoms.

I have a problem with this. For every example you can give of signs being
torn up by "liberals", I can give 10 equally vile example of free-speech
suppression
by "conservatives". Note, I'm not condoning their behavior. However, to 
extrapolate this one example to the conclusion that all liberals are
against
the first amendment and all conservatives are for it is completely
falacious
logic.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8085 alt.rush-limbaugh:9181
From: trevor@telesoft.com (Trevor Bourget @ignite)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: TeleSoft, San Diego, CA, USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:24:24 GMT

In <6677@news.duke.edu> lanier@acpub.duke.edu (Dustin Lanier) writes:

>How voters say they would feel about a Clinton victory

>Excited			16%
Probably nuts.

>Optimistic but not excited	26%
Probably didn't vote.

>Concerned but not scared	26%
Probably voted for Perot.

>Scared				28%
Probably voted for Bush.

>I was frankly pretty suprised about this, kind of interesting this poll
>came out after a victory ... it would have been an interesting question
>for Clinton to have adressed ...

And therefore one he would not and will not address.  How about this
response instead (found in a UPI article on ClariNews):

> Clinton, dressed in blue-jeans and a suede coat, began the day with a
> morning stroll with his wife, but promptly ended it when swarmed by
> inquiring reporters and camera crews.  Clearly upset, he snapped,
> "C'mon, let's get out of here."  They ducked into their limousine...

-- Trevor Bourget (trevor@telesoft.com)
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:35:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Rush grasps at straws
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

> 
> Well, Rush certainly started his show off in classic Limbaugh style.. 
> froth, rant, rave...
> 
> "Conservatives didn't lose [in spite of the loss of the white house and
> lots and lots of congressional seats].  Conservativism won because
> Clinton had to move to the center to win.  Bush lost because he
> abandoned conservativism."

Saying that conservatism won because Clinton had to moderate is
COMPLETELY assinine.  Clinton had a core of liberal supporters.
Bush has a core of conservatives.  The winner is the one who
captured the moderates.  Moderates determined the winner as they
always have and always will.  

The second idea may not be so absurd.  The moderates in the nation
were clearly sold on the Reagan revolution, and it is possible
that if Bush had just sold the idea with the proper amount of force
and conviction that he would have carried the day.  There is no
denying that the 1990 tax deal hurt him pretty badly in this election,
and that was fundamentally a betrayal of the Reagan revolution.


> 
> Rush is trying to say that Clinton was more attractive to the conservatives
> than Bush?   Stretching...   really stretching.

No, I think he is suggesting that moderates really lean towards conservatism.
They certainly did during the Reagan years.  This year they leaned
a bit towards liberalism for WHATEVER reason.

> 
> Right now he is claiming
> 
> "We have a guy who drove a VW bus in the '60s as a president elect."

Rush is a buffoon.  Some of the stuff he says on his show is
strictly and rigorously assinine.  The whole segment where
he was trying to prove that Clinton was changing his hair color
is one of the stupidist things I have ever see.  

Rush does provide some good conservative information, but it is
packed in with so much stupidity in the name of humor that it
is difficult to stomach sometimes.  Don't misunderstand me.  If it was
always clear that he was joking, it would not be such a big
problem, but in many cases like the hair color deal, he
seems to imply that their is some significant meaning to 
the absurd humor.
> 
> "Conservativism triumphed in California!  It triumphed. It triumphed."
> 
> Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer elected to the Senate is a triumph for
> conservativism?  Yah, sure.
> 
> God, Rush is funny today.

Yeah, he really is putting a hard spin on things. 

doug
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8260 alt.rush-limbaugh:9341 talk.bizarre:37451 alt.politics.elections:23300 alt.politics.bush:13634 alt.politics.clinton:16634 alt.job.gooley:75 rec.pets:3546
From: carasso@Turing.ORG (Roger Carasso)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.job.gooley,rec.pets
Subject: Re: WANKERS
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:24:15 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

jinxiong@cs.ucf.edu (Chen Jinxiong) writes:
>
>What is a wanker?

It's sort of like a jackalope.
What's an kangalope?


carasso,
unkillable.
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Can you say Prez Clinton ??? (No.)
Date: 9 Nov 92 04:56:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <gsh.721155036@hela.iti.org> gsh@iti.org (Greg Halbrook) writes:

>enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>>In article <1992Nov5.184844.4915@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
>>> In article <1992Nov4.174942.1@woods.ulowell.edu> , enor@woods.ulowell.edu
>>> writes:
>>> 
>>> Nope, so far the best I have been able to get out
>>> is "Comrade President Clintski." But I find that most
>>> of my liberal friends prefer it if I refer to him as
>>> Slick Willy. Gonna be a fun four years, for the first
>>> time a president I truly have no respect for at all! I
>>> think I see why the liberals have at least been enjoying
>>> themselves.

Yes...it's going to be a shock to find myself actually _defending_ the
president.  It'll be a challenge, because it's always easier to criticise
than to support.

>>	Those are my sentiments exactly.  Just thik though.  There's no way
>>Kemp can't win in 96 now.

I don't know if I'll be on the net in four years, but if I am, I will flog
you mercilessly with that statement in '96.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.irc
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: ATTENTION!!!
Summary: Join IRC's #Limbaugh channel! 
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:23:42 GMT



After weeks of painstaking construction and programming, we now have a
channel on IRC (Internet Relay Chat) devoted to... you guessed it...
DITTOHEADS.

Go to the channel #Limbaugh and you will find the DittoBot, a new bot
I have put together to run this channel; in addition, you might find
other Rush Limbaugh fans. 

#Limbaugh was designed as a gathering ground for us conservative
thinkers, to talk to each other when we are not huddled around the
last great bastion of conservative power in the world, for 3 hours a 
day.

They say there is safety in numbers, and that a community of
likeminded people, can survive a lot better than when they are
floating about, disunited and broken-spirited.


I will guarantee you that ruthless hecklers will be kicked and banned
for the sake of our peace of mind.


=============================================================================
-----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
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Liberal Trojan horse?
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 08:21:02 GMT


Points to ponder...

A prominent radio talk show host (who shall remain nameless, but he works
for the Mutual Network)  has made and interesting observation...

Perhaps Rush, and the Pat brothers, (Robertson and Buchanan), and Mme.
Schlafley, and Buffalo Bob Dornan, are in reality Democratic Moles,
infiltrating the Republican Party with the express intent of destroying
it from within.

(Sounds amazingly like something Rush would say...enough innuendo to make
his point clear, but speculative enough to protect him from a libel or
slander suit...)

Even if it's not true, the result is the same.  If any one thing caused the
Republicans to fall, it was the efforts of that gang...

A fact for which I will be forever greatful.

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //   No God, Know Peace   /\     * 
*                    Kelley L. Miller  //  Know God, No Peace    /P \    *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //                        /____\   *
*****************  James Trafficant for US Senate, 1998  *****************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hagerjd@triton.unm.edu (John D. Hager)
Subject: Re: November 3, the day Rush dies!
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 92 03:30:47 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <1992Nov3.113251.1@opie.bgsu.edu> wd208cs@opie.bgsu.edu writes:
>
>
>Well, it's election day.  We are going to see a great change in this country,
>with Clinton landsliding and all.  My question is:  What will happen to Rush
>once we have a Democratic President???  Will he spend his time bashing the
>leader of our country???  Doesn't seem to me that there's much future in that.
>
>
>
wanna bet?


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:19:41 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>In article <1992Nov10.171300.11448@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:

>>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>>                           | Support the coup!
>	Look, buster, this is America, and Clinton's our new president.
>	If you don't like it here, then you can always move to some
>other country. It's that simple.
>	That's right. America: love it or leave it.
>	[Note: all this is a satire of right-wing "patriotic" rhetoric.]

I have some problems with this:

1) You are confusing America with the Government. There is nothing wrong 
with loving your country and disagreeing with the Government, or the 
people who are leading it. In fact it is very heathy to do so. It keeps 
everyone on their toes. It would have been very wrong for the Liberals
to do that the last 12 years, as it would for Conservatives to do so the
next x years.

2) If it was wrong for the right-wings to say this, and I think it was,
it is just as wrong for you to say it. It is illogical for someone to
use an argument they do not agree with in order to prove a point, unless
they are trying to show that the argument isn't valid. I don't think that
was what you were trying to do, but I might be wrong. If you were trying 
to show it was invalid, fine, but that has nothing to do with John .sig.
The best way of proving your point is to make sure your arguments are
sound. I don't feel yours are. I'm not suggesting they couldn't be made
sound (I'll leave that up to you), just that they are not currently sound.

>/Loren
-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Need History Info on Rush Limbaugh...
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:13:38 GMT


I need a history synopsis on Rush Limbaugh for the #Limbaugh channel
on Internet Relay Chat, if anyone has this and is gracious enough
to e-mail it to me.

It will be the history file that users will see when they type
/msg DittoBot help. 

Thanks in advance...

=============================================================================
-----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,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bushr,alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:24:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.024733.27875@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.232138.18535@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov5.082832.19492JPII@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov5.034239.3528@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
>>>"
>>>"
>>>"Since George is on his way out, we will no longer need alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
>>>"alt.rush-limbaugh, or alt.politics.bush.  I will be sending out the
>>>"rmgroups for these three groups.  Also, since Clinton is now president,
>>>"I will create alt.president.clinton.  Since the volume should be large,
>>>"we'll hold on to alt.politics.clinton for a while.
>>>"
>>>"
>>>"Ta-ta for now,
>>>"M
>>>
>>>
>>>Good idea - I beat you to it!! rmgroups for alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and
>>>alt.politics.bush have been sent out as well as a newgroup for
>>>alt.president.clinton. I forgot alt.rush-limbaugh - you do the honors
>>>for that one.
>>>
>>Wait a minute--dropping newsgroups merely for supporting tBush??
>>
>>I thought users were allowed to vote on things like that.
>>
>>Simon
>
>Hey pal, in case you forgot you already voted and lost.  I'll be sending out
>the rmgroups when I get a chance.  Perhaps you could move this discussion
>over to alt.wankers.  I'll create it for you.
>                                                                You seem
to think that censorship is ok when your party wins.  Well, last time
I checked the Constitution, the First Admendment was still there, so
that means that everyone, Republicans, Democrats, Libertartians, or Perot
supporters are free to post on the net, and I seriously doubt that you have
the authority to cancel a newsgroups just because you don't like it.

Simon


I've heard of sore losers, but you're definitely a sore winner.  Do >
>Ta-ta for now,
>M


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc