HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re:  Rush is bad for our country
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:44:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.165521.28623@news.ysu.edu>, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
|> 
|> In a previous article, gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez) says:
|> 
|> >	Let me begin by saying that I am a registered Democrat and had supported
|> >Dukakis back in '88, although I wasn't old enough to vote.  It seems every month
|> >that goes by I become more and more conservative, and it is due to people
|> >like Mr. Miller.  One last qualifier, my moving in the direction of conservatism
|> >began before I started to listen to Rush Lambaugh.
|> >

Kelly Miller says: 

|> I am registered independent, and consider myself a moderate.  Would it surprise
|> you, Mr. Gonzalez, to learn that I voted for Jimmy Carter in 1976, because
|> Gerald Ford demonstrated he was unable to handle the job?  Would it further
|> surprise you to learn that in 1980 I voted for Ronald Reagan because Jimmy
|> Carter demonstrated his inability, and again in 1984 because I thought he had
|> done a good job, and that he should be allowed to continue?  Would you be
|> amazed to learn that in 1988 I voted for George Bush because I somehow felt
|> he would carry on where Reagan left off.
|> 
|> And would you believe that I'm voting for Clinton because, as Ford had and as
|> Carter had, he has demonstrated an inability to do the job?
|> 
|> But this is not about Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal.  It's
|> about radical left and right.

Sounds like I need to reconsider and vote for Bush because you support Clinton.
With a one out of three record of voting for someone who could do a good job,
it would appear that voting for the candidate that you don't support has a
greater chance (two out of three) of selecting the person who could do the job
better (especially when the only thing going for Clinton is Bush's economic
record).

<< stuff deleted >>

dp

***  The opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my  ***
***  employer.                                                           ***
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Two down... one to go!
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:42:17 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <1992Oct11.005949.11682@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>>I'm NOT ADVOCATING A THEOCRACY here, but... 
>>
>>What do you think about "In God we trust" on the back of the US Dollar
>>bill?
>>Isn't that a flagrant violation of Freedom of Religion, and if so, why
>>don't you ask your representative in Congress to have it removed? 
>>
>
>I believe it is a violation of freedom of religion, and I have written my
>congressman (James Trafficant (D-17 OH), and my Senators (Juhn Glenn, Howard
>Metzenbaum) about this issue, as well as other issues of idealogical freedom,
>including the ritualized forced patriotic indoctrination of our shcool
>children (the Pledge of Allegience), and the insistance of some state courts
>(Ohio not included) insistance that all witnesses take an anti-purgery oath
>which requires placing ones hand on a bible, or saying "...so help me God."
>as an affermation. (Texas, Utah, ect.)

Why is it that Bill Clinton and others won't follow you up on this? 

>I have also actively protested the habit of the courts, in alchahol or
>drug related cases, of including as part of the sentence requireing the
>convicted person to enter A. A. or N. A. because of the serenity pledge
>(God, grant me the wisdom...)
>
>Why do you ask?

Because I just wondered if you will ever win over the American people
with these ideas and if the American People support a consistent
application of your cause. I also wanted to know if you support a
consistent application of your cause.


=============================================================================
-----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: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 12:18:30 GMT

aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:

>As I mentioned in an e-mail note to Bert Smith,  I stand corrected
>and I retract my implication that the net is being used improperly.

Before you do that you may want to FTP the latest copy of the NSFNet's
Acceptable Use Policy from nnsc.nsf.gov. Using the NSFNet for thumping
votes, regardless of political affiliation, doesn't seem to appear in
their list of acceptable uses.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 10:47:19 GMT

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

>	This election is the juxposition of two major events for
>Republicans.... 
>(Call this premature if you like, but unless Clinton is found
>screwing a sheep, the writings on the wall, folks)

I'll agree with this. I've been referring to Bush as the Jimmy Carter of
the 1990s' for almost a year now - not in terms of economic performance, but
how the people have "written off" an incumbent president and no matter
what he says or does, people just aren't going to vote for him.


>	The other major event is the rise of Limbaugh, Buchannan and
>their ilk within the party.

"Ilk"? I wasn't aware that Limbaugh had a place 'within the party' to
rise to.


>No one can prove that the reason that
>people arn't voting republican is because of the choices of Convention
>speakers this year,

Then again, no one can prove that the reason that people are voting
republican is because of the choices of Convention speakers this year, so
what's your point?


>	It seems terribly ironic that Rushs rise would coincide with
>the fall of his beloved party, and even more so that his rise could be
>factor in the decline.

Rush's rise in popularity has little to do with Republican popularity or
unpopularity in this election.

What makes you think that people will stop listening to Rush simply
because Bush is no longer President?


>It will take more then one race to show a clear
>cause and effect, of course, but it looks entertainingly suspicious.

Only to you, apparently.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Technical Request
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:08:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <ldog2fINNlrv@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:

>>>I think Clinton will do more to heal the various social rifts in this
>>>country, especially the racial tensions, which are largely economic in
>			  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>	I blame "racial tensions" on the left and their "political
>correctness" crap.  All it does is divide people back into groups.  Wait a
>minute!!  Wasn't the civil rights movement suppossed to do away with
>divisions???

I'm sick as hell of "political correctness" being connected with liberalism.
It's a universal condition.  People choose to remain in groups; it's an
individual decision, not a governmental one.  And the civil rights movement
_did_ reduce divisions.  At the very least, it brough them out into the open.
If there hadn't been a liberal civil rights movement, African-Americans
might still be drinking from different fountains.
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
Date: 12 Oct 92 18:19:12 GMT
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct10.125444.1@cstp.umkc.edu> rdale@cstp.umkc.edu writes:

>	It was purely a red herring to embarass Bush.

Do you want a President  who can't sidestep or defuse obvious red herrings?

Think about it - if the congress (who can't even balance their checkbooks)
can put one over on Bush,  then think what foreign powers might be able to
do...  Heck, they might be able to snooker him into giving them illegal loans
which they use to build a killing machine that they use to conquer oil 
rich neighbors.
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (The Old Man of Benham Spur)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:09:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Rice University

In article <1992Oct9.161429.11695@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner) writes:
>In article <LARRY.92Oct8111459@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.131337.27752@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner) writes:
>>
>>   You want real change? HUH?
>>
>>   Vote for George Bush.
>>
>>   Not only that, vote the Liberal Democrats OUT!
>>    Tell Tom Foley to go suck
>>   on a gas pipe.
>>
>>   Tell Albert Bustamante to eat some toxic waste!!!!
>>
>>   And tell 'ol Al Gore to go blow himself!!
>>
>>   These are my own opinions. 
>>
>>You are hereby certified for rank of MegaDitto..
>>
>Thank you very much. I AM a Mega DittoHead!

Gee, I'd never have guessed...

--PLH (don't blame me, I'm voting Libertarian.  Screw the Republicrats.)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: systrent@aix3090b.uky.edu (Trent Fraebel)
Subject: Re: RUSH'S FAX NUMBER? 
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:55:01 GMT

xposxl@bmw.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (shelley l lane) writes:

>
DOES ANYONE HAVE RUSH'S FAX NUMBER?
 212-613-3884
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Computer Technology Group, TAEX
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:48:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.222749.15591@unislc.uucp> das@unislc.uucp (David 
Shorten) writes:

>Philip W. Hurley (phurley@tamu.edu) wrote:
>: In article <ld1gq9INNelc@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (
>: Michael Polen) writes:
>: 
>: >After all, what is religion for but to turn philosophical differences
>: >into holy wars.
>: 
>: "If any man among you seem to be religious and bridleth not his tongue, but 
>: deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and 
>: undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and 
>: widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
>:                                      - James 1:26-27

>An excellent definition, I just wish that the "religious" institutions
>that teach from the bible would attempt to foster such an attitude.

>Instead they encourage regular meetings to listen to each other's unbridled
>tongues, and attempt to force their own attitudes on the rest of us.

>Dave S.
Dave,

You are painting with an awfully broad brush, aren't you? How many 
"'religious' institutions that teach from the bible" have you attended? A 
friend of mine once said he had looked for a church that taught from the 
bible throughout this entire county and didn't find one. It is not that 
there are not plenty of churches.

This thread started out talking about abortion and responsibility and I just 
read a posting that says humans make mistakes. I seem to see a double 
standard that gives pregnant women who want an abortion the benefit of the 
doubt but people who gather once a week in an ornate building who genuinely 
"attempt to foster [pure religion]" are seen as listening "to each other's 
unbridled tongues" and attempting "to force their own attitudes on the rest 
of us."

This seems to imply that it's okay to have an unbridled tongue (i.e., have 
no religion) if you don't go to church. It also implies that non-religious 
zealots don't attempt to force _their_ attitudes on anyone.

What about you, Dave. Are you familiar with the Bible's definition of pure 
religion? An honest attempt to understand the Bible would be the first step 
to evaluating the work of a particular local church. Instead of "wishing" 
that churches would respond properly to God, have you tried praying? Are 
_you_ responding properly to God? You don't have to answer _me_ so don't 
accuse me of being judgemental.

Philip Hurley               "It is absurd to say that you are
T.A.E.X.                    especially advancing freedom when you only
Computer Technology         use free thought to destroy free will."
(409) 845-9689                              -- Chesterton
p-hurley1@tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 19:32:40 GMT
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Subject: Re: Quayle Smashes Gore...
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Keywords: 

pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.005736.14928@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>>Well, like I thought would happen, Quayle demoloshid Gore in the debate.  It
>>looks like Quayle could be the only thing that might possibly save Bush.  
>
> agree he is probably the best thing the republicans have left.
>Are we getting desperate ?

For this election, maybe.  But I'm still holding out for Kemp in 96.

Geoff

-- 
Geoff Allen          \  A fanatic is one who can't change his
uunet!pmafire!geoff   \  mind and won't change the subject.
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \		-- Winston Churchill
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hiramc@sco.COM (Hiram Clawson)
Subject: Re: Rush and Columbus
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:17:38 GMT


In article <X> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>Just heared Rush missrepresenting in his usual manner the ideas
>behind multi-culturalism. He the received a phone call from Grace
>who read him a passage from Columbus's diary and doubted her
>sources. When she stated she had found this in 3 different
>publications, Rush tried to use arguments like histroy has too often
>been rewritten, I won't argue this with you. It's good to hear Rush
>being humbled, nevertheless his ego makes up for his lack of brain,
>he can't admit that he is wrong.

I once heard Howard Zinn (People's history of the U.S.) answer
this question about his sources in his book about the Columbus
diary.  Zinn explained that the actual diary does not exist
for modern historians.  What is used by historians, if I remember
Zinn's answer correctly, are notes by family members of Columbus about the
diary from the same time that do still exist, and commentaries written
about the diary by commentators such as de las Casas that supposedly
were accessing the diary at the time they wrote their commentary.
The prime source does not exist, but Zinn says historians are in
agreement that what they are quoting is accurate.  Part of the cross
checking involves other observations made by other european invaders,
their diaries and ship logs, which are similar to the quoted parts
of Columbus.

--Hiram

 [*~   Hiram Clawson - Member, Technical Staff, The Santa Cruz Operation    ~*]
 [*~   P.O. Box 1900, Santa Cruz, CA 95061 - tel. 408-427-7519              ~*]
 [*~ FAX: 408-458-0811, Electronic mail: uunet!sco!hiramc or hiramc@sco.COM ~*]

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: luhmanjp@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu (Joe Luhman)
Subject: Re: The Limbaugh Poll
Organization: University of Minnesota - Morris
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:48:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.220836.5004@afterlife.ncsc.mil>  
acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:
> Just a note about this so-called poll Rash Dimbulb conducted:
[stuff deleted]
>... anyone
> who thanks the Dimbulb poll is accurate is deluded.

I don't know anyone who does believe the poll shows anything reflective of the  
feelings of this nation, including Rush himself.  Listening to the shows this  
week it was abundantly clear that Rush was making no attempt to describe the  
feelings of the nation.  He said it was a completely unscientific poll and he  
and Buchannan were even making jokes about it ('..he's closed the gap..', etc.)
Please do not assume that fans of Mr. Limbaugh take everything he says as  
gospel.  Think for yourself, as Rush does.

 -------------------------------------------------------------------
| Joe Luhman    |  luhmanjp@cab.mrs.umn.edu                        |
| U of MN-Morris|  luhmanjp@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu(NeXt Mail        |
| UMM # 243     |   (612)324-2566                                  |
| Morris,MN     | "If you dont like what you see here,get the funk |
| 56267         |  out...you can always leave the country"-Extreme |
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:51:06 GMT
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:

> In <1992Oct1.235346.23307@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes:
> 
> 
> >How many people do you know that bought or have read Clinton-Gore?  The
> >vast majority of people I know are Democrats and are going to probably
> >vote for Clinton-Gore.  Yet I do not know one single person that has read
> >'The Comeback Kid' or Gore's book on the environment -- not one.  
> 
> As Rush would probably say, "Liberals can't read."
> 
> heh-heh.

You are right.  This sort of tedious triviality is exactly the sort
of rhetoric rush would engage in.   It is why people like him.

doug
From: young7905@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Think about it for a minute
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:46:19 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Instead of criticising any "liberal" that has a solution, why not try and think
of your own solution. I got into this newsgroup hoping I would at least one
person would be a little critical of what Rush does, but to my dismay no one is
at all. Is it really that satisfying to pan everyone's ideas on how to make
this world a better place to live. try and lose the label conservative and
really evaluate what you believe by your own set of criteria not the criteria
of the conservative philosophy. Maybe you'll see the solutions proposed by us
"bleeding heart liberals" aren't so stupid after all.
From: ccohen+@pitt.edu (Caleb N Cohen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Cold Fusion!
Date: 9 Oct 92 00:44:11 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: ccohen@unixd2.cis.pitt.edu

Friends,
  Does anybody know what (if anything) Rush has said about the Pons/
Fleishman team from Univ. Utah and Cold Fusion.  I have heard - through
the grapevine which included a bunch of liberals that he has
stated that Cold Fusion actually exists, but that the government is
supressing it.  Without telling you how utterly ridiculous this
is, I would like to know if anyone else has heard of this...


Thanks,
Caleb
From: dan@ektools.kodak.com (Daniel P. Schaertel)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Think about it for a minute
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:53:51 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak

In article <1992Oct16.094619.7729@iscsvax.uni.edu> young7905@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>Instead of criticising any "liberal" that has a solution, why not try and think
>of your own solution. I got into this newsgroup hoping I would at least one
>person would be a little critical of what Rush does, but to my dismay no one is
>at all. Is it really that satisfying to pan everyone's ideas on how to make
>this world a better place to live. try and lose the label conservative and
>really evaluate what you believe by your own set of criteria not the criteria
>of the conservative philosophy. Maybe you'll see the solutions proposed by us
>"bleeding heart liberals" aren't so stupid after all.

It isn't that simple.  You see it isn't just defining a solution, it is
defining the problem.  Liberals and Conservatives often have different
ideas about what is a problem and what is not.  Or at least what is a
problem that government should fix and what should be left to the
private sector.  Conservatives (as myself) tend to believe that more
should be left to the private sector and ruled by competition and market
forces.  Liberals tend to believe that more should be controlled by
government.  Unfortunately I tend to think that in general government
control is a bad thing.  It leads to socialism and communism.  This
country was founded as an escape from government control, and now many
are trying to take us back to what we originally escaped from.  The
steps may be small and inconspicious, but they are real.  What happens
if left unchecked is we become desensitized to the trend.  We must fight
any little step no matter how trite it may seem, because the big picture
shows a trend that I don't particularly care for.  So we may seem
extreme when we engage you just because you are liberal, but it has to
be done.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Health Care: costs vs. convience
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:32:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.230417.1@cstp.umkc.edu> rdale@cstp.umkc.edu writes:

>	And won't it just be *wonderful* to see that national health
>care program run with all the loving tenderness of the Veterans'
>Hospitals, Medicare, welfare, and drivers' license bureaus?

	This is a red herring, and it avoids the real issue, which is cost
containment. The reality is that in order to keep costs down, most of the
country is going to be enrolled in an HMO before too much longer. HMO's
have all the personality of the DMV sometimes, but they arn't too bad,
if they're run right. Since managed competition allows people to choose
their HMO, the incentives to make health care convientent and comfortable.

	No one - not Bill Clinton, not Bush, no one, is supporting government
managed health care. Managed competition will even eliminate MediCare,
MedicAid and the VA, by dumping all of these people into privately managed
HMOs, which compete for contracts patient groups. The government simply
acts as a broker for the community (and even this could be privatized).

	The current health care system is stupid - there is no reason to
attach health care to employment. It completely fails me to understand why
republicans haven't seized this oppertunity to free business of the 
responsibilty for health care, and let business do what it does best: business.
-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992 09:50:25 MST
From: <AUTSW@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rush

In article <1992Oct13.233814.7615@iscsvax.uni.edu>, young7905@iscsvax.uni.edu
says:
>
>To all Rush's Supporters wherever you are:
>
>
>               RUSH MUST DIE!!!!!!!!!
>
>                    Bye!
>

Oops, you have that wrong... It's all liberal-leftist-extremist-wackos that
must die...