HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's broken promise
Date: 22 Aug 92 05:00:22 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <v9_n4c.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>In article <92234.161728ATERO@ASUACAD.BITNET> ATERO@ASUACAD.BITNET writes:
>>Has anyone heard a satisfactory explanation from Clinton as to why he went back
>>on his promise not to run for president if he was elected governor?


>Clinton wanted to be President and he changed his mind. As a die-hard 
>Bush supporter, I'd love to whack Clinton over the head with this, but 
>I think it falls into the category of "well, yeah, but you knew he was
>lying anyway." 

>John Switzer               | "Don't mess with me, man!

But after being successful to balance a budget in Arkansas for the
last 12 years, isn't Clinton going to do much more good if he gets
the chance to do the same for the whole country. Even Arkansas will
benefit from this.
What do you think the chances are that a republican president will
be willing to fight congress... I don't mean ronnie, I mean Georgie.
Isn't it ultimately better for the country to have a decisive policy
towards the deficit than a political fight in which the president
will veto everything congress passes and congress will block
anything the president wants. And hey if they mess up they will be
held responsible for it the next elections. No cheap accusations of
"but I tried, but congress was not willing.". Meaning he proposed
soemthing but was too busy with international politics to actually
fight for his believes. A whimp indeed and a failure as a leader.
Ask anyone if he/she feels that he/she is worse of than 4 years ago
and many will say so, except for the few proviliged. Now if people
have to vote, who will vote for a president under whose command the
deficit increased to 4.3 trillion dollars. Only the people who wnat
to limit a woman's choice, who will benefit from a capital gains tax
cut (guess who ???), people who are presently trashing the
environment and don't want to pay up for it, people who believe that
prayer in schools should be supported... That would leave a nice
majority who can vote out of conviction that a democratic president
can be much more decisive in fighting the slacking economy, the ever
increasing deficit and the unequalities in the american society.

Pim van Meurs
-- 
Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:08:20 GMT

mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    I wouldn't have thought that the British domination of the Zulus 
>>was a very good analogy for our modern culture "war";

>[other irrelevancies deleted]

>Huh?  Buchanan's statement had nothing to do with the British
>Empire's suppresion of the Zulu uprising.

    Well, of course you're correct. I suppose I was really responding  
to statements made by other folks recently in this group that Western 
culture has been demonstrated to be far superior to African tribal 
cultures. I would say that Western technology and military techniques 
were superior (barring the disastrous battle at Iswandlana), but I'm 
not convinced that Western civilization's victories over the Zulus, the 
Ashantis, the Abyssinians, the New Zealand Maoris, or the North American 
Sioux are evidence that our culture is superior to theirs. I guess it 
depends on how you define "superior".

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:17:49 GMT
Reply-To: doel@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Research & Development

In article <1827@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

> that occurs in the national media outlets. Some PBS fans actually state that 
> PBS isnt biased. A network that is partially funded by the government is not
> going to have a big government bias. Thats funny.

Sorry Steve, but I don't think this holds water.  I would agree that the
major networks (NBC for example) are biased towards the liberal view,
yet they're supported by big corporations.  I think you have to evaluate
the bias of news-reporting without respect to the funding backing it
up.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@crd.ge.com>
P.O. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301			(518) 387-6203

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:16:09 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.135039.2443@athena.cs.uga.edu>, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:

|> Let us settle this once and for all.  I am no Clinton supporter, but did
|> Hillary really liken marriage to slavery?

	In law school, Hillary Clinton drafted some papers discussing
the legal aspects of being a housewife, and likened it to the legal
position of being a slave, because of the financial dependance
involved. She also did a paper on the rights of children to sue their
parents, and presumably concluded that under current law, it's a
legitimate scenerio (I haven't read it, but given that Pat said she
"supported" it ..).

	All of these were theoretical arguments for law class.
Claiming these were position papers is streching it, to say the least.

-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4729 alt.politics.clinton:2458
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton's Tax Increases - A Little Truth
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:52:28 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>Willie won't win his own home state.  The people there KNOW him.

Um, as I understood it he was re-elected governor a couple of
times.  Is this wrong, or are you saying they would vote for
him for governor but not president?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Still shone the candlelight on the empty screen, after the power went.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4337 alt.rush-limbaugh:3534
From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Balanced Budget Amendment
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:55:58 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

In article <1992Aug10.201723.28048@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>The proposed balanced budget amendment will work about as well as 
>Graham-Rudmann.   I.E., not at all.    There is no penalty clause.
>How about the following idea;

We will never know if Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (aside:  Ever find it
interesting that now that GRH is a "failure," Hollings' name is rarely
associated with this bipartisan bill) would work or not because Bush
wimped and raised taxes.  Had he not raised taxes, Congress would've
been forced to accept sweeping across-the-board real cuts to close the
gap.  And now, like most legislation it passes, Congress has virtually
exempted itself from GRH?

And speaking of real cuts, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing a 4%
spending increase called a "cut" because the original proposal called
for an 8% increase.

Agitator
  #->

"A political deadend."                  Bruce Herschensohn for U.S. Senate!!!
    --Gore on the Vice Presidency when    Not the ten-year       //  The REAL
      asked about a Dukakis-Gore ticket   Congress insider      //   outsider
--------------- R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G ------------\\ //------------
IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer?           \X/  Only AMIGA!
========================================== Bring Back the Caltech Cannon!! ==
Roderick Lee, HMC '91      "The Professional Agitator"      agitator@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Clinton Will Raise YOUR Taxes - NOT!
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: na, usa
Date: 12 Aug 92 10:28:24 CDT


In article <1992Aug11.232353.16758@athena.cs.uga.edu>, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.194358.27597@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
> 
> >If the only way to eliminate the debt is to raise taxes,  then we need to 
> >do it.   We can't afford to keep pouring tax dollars down the "debt interest
> >rathole".
> 
> Who said the only way to eliminate the deficit was to raise taxes?

Who (which politicians) are talking about any real cuts (other than Tsongas
and the plan released after Perot dropped out)?

A group of conservative republicans (Jack Kemp, Vin Weber, Newt Gingrich, 
Connie Mack, Trent Lott, Bob Kasten, and Malcolm Wallop) sent Bush a 
memo (printed in the Wall Street Journal on Tues, Aug 11, 1992) calling
for all sorts of tax cuts.  The only spending cuts mentioned were Bush's
defense cuts, a spending freeze on domestic programs (even though they have 
been fighting to protect their "pork", such as Weber protecting hog research), 
and capping the increase in entitlements to the rate of inflation plus the 
population increase (which is about what the current COLA is).

So in other words, they want some defense cuts and cuts in other people's
pet programs.  (kinda sounds like the Democrats plan.)  Add in the tax cuts
and its "voodoo - round II".

-- 
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!)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4358 alt.rush-limbaugh:3543
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Cheated? was Re: A fine opportunity for DITTOHEAD flameage
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:05:33 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 92Aug12152827@peak.psl.nmsu.edu, larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>In article <1992Aug11.121344.4827@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
>   If it's not true, why did he not deny it???   Why did he not admit it???  
>   Didn't want to lie OR be honest, I guess.  Veeeeeery Slick indeed!
>Who cares? Not me. I don't care if Bush messed with Jennifer Fitzgerald
>either. I don't think it has a hell of a lot to do with the job of the
>presidency. 
>History is full of great leaders whose feet were made of clay.

The difference here is the hypocracy of the right-wing machine.  I never
see Democrats scream about such things.  I believe Democrats are more openminded
when it comes to these types of things.

---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Will Raise YOUR Taxes - NOT!
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:44:49 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 27597@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>If the only way to eliminate the debt is to raise taxes,  then we need to 
>do it.   We can't afford to keep pouring tax dollars down the "debt interest
>rathole".

There's one other way to fix the deficit....INFLATION

---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Tax Increases - A Little Truth
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:56:29 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Aug13.140225.13588@afterlife.ncsc.mil>
acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:
>however, is an exception. I'm not going to argue that the sales tax
>isn't a horribly unfair tax, but, when your looking at
>a) a Constitutionally required balanced budget and
>b) the effective impossibility of raising other taxes
>I can't blame Clinton for going the sales tax route.

Why can't you blame him?  You blame Bush for raising taxes.  The problem with
what I might call the typical Democratic solution is that it always looks
for more money rather than less spending.  By Clinton's own figure, his
proposals will add over $220 billion in additional spending.  How about
LESS SPENDING?  If a small fairly backward state (sorry razorbacks) cannot
get its spending under current budegtary limits under Clinton, how in the
hell is Taxbill Clinton going to control the US budget with a strong
democratically controlled legislature?
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton (was: Re: Buchanan's speech)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 02:54:23 GMT



In article <1992Aug23.004337.19230@leela.cs.orst.edu> chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.
EDU (David Christensen) writes:
>Thank you, William Porter, for digging up the actual text being quoted by
>so many people to take digs at Hillary  Clinton.  I'm not going to defend what
>she wrote in 1974.  I don't understand what she was trying to say, either.
>
>But let me reiterate after Mr. Porter.   Ms. Clinton was pretty young in 1974,
>and a student.
>

Well, gee, I am willing to admit that I wrote some stupid things while in 
college...  Where is Hillary?  Why can't SHE comment about the things she did 
when she was young?  Does she have tape over her mouth? :)


>Six years later, in 1980, George Bush was still pro-choice.  Bush made his now
>famous quip about Reagan's "voodoo economics" also in 1980.  He was not youthf
>ul nor a student; he was an experienced and accomplished bureaucrat and 
>politician.
>We all know how malleable those positions were.  And we haven't yet heard what
>Bar was thinking in 1974, 1980, or whatever.  (Well, abortion excepted.)
>

No arguement here, but he's better than the alternative...

>So do you think we could put this flap to rest?  It's pretty dumb.
>
>
>As for the "I could stayed home and baked cookies and had teas" remark.  Come
on
>now.  How many attorneys do you know?  Marilyn Quayle is an attorney, and does
>not stay home to bake cookies while her children at school.  Phyllis Schafly's
>children, I understand, live with relatives in another state, so she can pursu
e
>her career as a conservative advocate of "family values."  Whatever.
>
>Many, many women in this country hold jobs outside the home. (Reality.) Some b
y
>preference, more (I assume) by necessity.  Jumping all over Ms.Clinton's remar
k
>makes a person seem pretty oblivious to American life in 1992.

The point is not what she or anyone else did, but what she SAID.  She offended 
all the women who bake cookies and have teas, just like Dan Quale offended all 
the single mothers. :)
>
>Patrick Buchanan isn't running for President.  Neither is Pat Robertson, Jesse
>Jackson, or Ted Kennedy.  Barbara Bush and Hillary Clinton, Tipper Gore and
>Marilyn Quayle are married to the various candidates.  What they say and think
>matters, but they are not, repeat NOT, running for President.  When there are
>so many many issues of REAL import, and declared positions and governing recor
ds
>of the candidates themselves to discuss, why are so many so obsessed with so
>little?
>


Because neither candidate has any solution.
-- 
           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
             Win Twins!
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:07:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Aug20.135039.2443@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:

>Let us settle this once and for all.  I am no Clinton supporter, but did
>Hillary really liken marriage to slavery?

Today our paper addressed this question.  The paper gave exact excerpts
from what she wrote.  The following is by memory, but much more accurate
than what has been implied by Buchannan.   The answer is NO, she did not.
She wrote about institutions that have historically put an entire class of
people under the control of another class of people.  "Examples include
marriage, slavery and indian reservations."

Note that this does not say marriage is slavery,  anymore than the statement
that "Past presidents include Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan" says that
Carter == Reagan.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Media Bias?????
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Aug 92 07:24:49 CDT


In article <1992Aug20.154703.5217@hemlock.cray.com>, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> In dpage@ra (Doug Page) writes:
> 
> > Have you heard anyone in the media point out that it was Al Gore that
> > introduced the W. Horton issue in the 1988 campaign.  Oops, another fact
> > "forgotten".
> 
> Not "forgotten", just false.  Al Gore brought up the furlough issue.
> He used or knew any names.  It was Lee Atwater and the Republican's
    ^never
> that used Willie Horton and Floyd Brown's "independent" campaign ad
> that used Horton's picture.
> 
> Amazing how some people translate the media's failure to spread lies into
> "media bias".
-- 
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!)
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:50:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <19AUG199213222412@jetson.uh.edu> wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (William M. Porter) writes:

>I have read Mrs. Clinton's own words. Buchanan did NOT misrepresent what
>she said.

Let us settle this once and for all.  I am no Clinton supporter, but did
Hillary really liken marriage to slavery?  All of the networks said this was
not true after analyzing Buchannan's speech.  No one deserves to have words
put in their mouth, or to be taken out of context.  Perhaps Hillary was
saying that being married to a candidate was like being a slave?  Which is
probably true in many respects.  But what did she say and where is the
source?

Ted Kalivoda
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4623 alt.rush-limbaugh:3726
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Welcome Home Rally for George & Bar
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:23:20 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <19AUG199202250605@jetson.uh.edu> wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (William M. Porter) writes:
> It was focused and forceful--and all in complete
>sentences. The audience was wildly enthusiastic. I did not have the feeling
>that very many people there are depressed about his chances in November.

 The unsung hero of this campaign might be the medias favorite pin cushion.
I watched a video taping of Dan Quayles visit to Ohio recently on CSPAN. This
was raw coverage of the event. The huge crowds absolutely went wild. They sang
songs like "We love you Dan, oh yes we do.....". Apparently the family issue
item has resonated with the mid-west. Quayle may own it.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% f
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:08:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

To: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh


  .Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% for health
  .Message-ID: <mykes.0c9u@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
  .Date: 13 Aug 92 00:47:19 PST

MS.In article <nate.462@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.ed
  .Nathan Engle) writes:
  .>     How about a capital gains cut for long term investment (leaving the
  .> current rate for short term investments)?
  .>

MS.The problem with capital gains taxes in the short term is that they
  .contribute to the stagnant growth that we've seen over the last 4
  .years.  The tax is an incentive to not cash in an investment and
  .use it for other investments.

Capital Gains taxes is nothing more than a compromise between the gov't
wanting another source of tax revenues and the degree to which a
business is incented to invest in their own enterprise.  If capital
gains taxes are too high, no investment.  If capital gains taxes are too
low, Uncle Sam goes into more debt (Well, Congress certainly has
demonstrated that they won't CUT anything!).  When a company or a person
invests, it creates jobs, generating more cash circulation and higher
revenues, than if there were no investment.  That's why Bush keeps
trying to convince Americans that LOWERING capital gains will generate
more tax revenues.  But, we are too busy trying to holler that it will
help the RICH!  Good grief!  The poor people don't create jobs!


Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . My reality check just bounced.
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Lots of new millionairs
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 13 Aug 92 03:24:25 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

IMO, too much emphasis is placed on the fact that the number of millionairs
increased from 4,000-6000 to 64,000 during the 80's.  I can come up with
ONE blatant and obvious way that a significant number of them became millionairs.
And you can't blame it on Reaganomics or the S&L crooks or anything like that :)

Consider the state lotteries...  If 10 states gave away $1,000,000 per week for
10 years, the lottery would have made 5,200 new millionairs.  Here in California,
there are several weekly lotteries that can make a person a millionaire.  And
often, there are big prize lotteries that have multiple winners (share millions).

Could it be that as many as 1/4 of those new millionairs are lotto winners? :)


--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh