HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: The Real Reagan Record
Organization: SPS
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:00:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.155008.14345@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
|> Have any of you read the  August 31 issue of NATIONAL REVIEW.  I found 
|> this quite amazing.  On pages 25-62 is found the cover story, THE REAL 
|> REGAN RECORD.  Many (a dozen or so) authors have each taken one plank 
|> of the conventional liberal tale of how Ronny ruined America, and 
|> smashed it to pieces.
|> 
|> Some of the subjects covered are:
|> 
|> 	Liberal claim		This article says
|> 
|> Household income went down	NOT
|> Rich got richer			not much
|> Poor got poorer			NOT
|> Poor are normal families	NOT
|> Jobs created were McJobs	NOT
|> US national debt is terrible	NOT
|> negative trade surplus is bad	not as simple as that
|> foreigners are taking over	not really        
|> deficits caused by tax cuts	NOT
|> entitlements went down		NOT
|> Rich paid less taxes		NOT
|> Rich got a tax break		NOT
|> Junk bonds were bad for bus.	NOT
|> policies were especially 
|> 	hard on blacks		NOT
|> Reagan caused S&L crisis	NOT
|> policies made it harder 
|> 	for poor to advance	NOT
|> Reagan created homelessness	NOT
|> Reagan made homelessness worse	NOT
|> more difficult to own a home	NOT
|> HUD spending went down		NOT
|> Decade of Greed			NOT
|> bad for the environment		NOT
|> 
|> 
|> I'm sure you liberals will hate to hear this, and you conservatives will 
|> love it.  Either way, it is a good read.
|> 

Well I think HUD spending *SHOULD* go down.  That it didn't is a failure.  We
need to rollback the welfare state.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Gardner on Evolution
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 18:51:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.141846.623@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:

   >In article <1992Aug26.120101@cozy.Prime.COM> dwolff@cozy (David Wolff) writes:
   >>In article <1992Aug25.223154.1867@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>,
[...]
   Fundamentalists user this argument over and over again because it
   sounds scientific, and a short reading of the law without explaining
   what it really means lends credence to their claim.  And most
   fundamentalists will not question what was told them, so they won't
   look into it.  But the argument falls apart on close examination.

   The best version of the 2nd Law I have ever heard :

     "To get something clean, you have to get something else dirty."

   Think about it.  It is possible to get things clean, isn't it?
   Sometimes, even by accident?

Cute.

The first law says:  You can't win.
The second law:  You can't even break even.
The third law:  You can't get out of the game.
The zeroth law:  You can't even find out the score.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.activism.d
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: A journalist speaks on media bias
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:45:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.190513.10843@afit.af.mil>,
  jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
>
>>Maybe you are the one who should question your rock-solid opinions and
>>judgmental demeanor.
>
>If I sounded judgemental (to you or in any other post) it was not 
>intentional.  I admit I get carried away sometimes, but not usually 
>in a partisan way.  What I rally against is not necessarily the liberal
>agenda.  It is (and you can check my other posts) against the arrogance
>of "my opinion is the only G*d d*mned opinion that makes *any* sense
>and anybody who disagrees with me is ignorant."  Not that your post 
>sounded like that, but media bias has a tendency to come off like that
>(as in your making the "accurate" choice about labels) and that is why I 
>hate it so much. 
>
>And I don't think I need to question my opinions.  I have them and so
>does everybody else.  The free flow of these opinions on the net is a
>great thing.  I have a problem when those opinions work their way into
>a news story, though.

Why not?  Your opinion could be wrong.  I had the opinion that the U.S.
should do something like air strikes to help the Bosnians.  I have since
changed my mind.  This is why I don't understand all the criticism of
politicians flip-flopping, if they are really changing their mind on
an issue.  Flip-flopping for political gain is another story.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Date: 27 Aug 92 17:11:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <1992Aug21.221537.20413@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <5957@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>
>	If your so desparate to slam Bill Clinton that your going to character
>assasinate his wife like this, then you probably don't have much do say about
>your candidate. If your candidate is George Bush, I can see how that would be
>true.
>-- 
>Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.
>
Ms Clinton has stated on several occasions that she would play a significant
role in her husband's administration.  Why, then, is it so difficult for
you to comprehend that she has thus become more than just his wife.  It is
like Bush saying that Jerry Falwell will play a role during the next term,
would you, sir, be able to keep quiet about that?  Or perhaps you have a
problem with a women getting the same treatment that men such as Robert Bork
got?  (that is a double standard obviously).

Uh oh... (gulp), I agree with you about George Bush, but only to a certain 
point.  I also trust Bill Clinton to raise taxes and further restrict 
individual freedoms via the "large government knows best" philosophy.  
I would point out that though Bush may not be the ideal president, Clinton
would be worse for the country overall.  

Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican convention
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 01:32:52 GMT

I'll tell you want the media's bias is. The media is biased towards what they
think will attract viewers.

Remember that the main product these companies produce is viewers. Their main
customers are advertising agencies. When some particular theme seems to be 
popular, they will pretty much all jump on it. To predict their bias, you'd
be as lucky watching movie sales figures and neilsen ratings as you would
trying to guess whether the press is feeling liberal, conservative, socialist,
reactionary, or whatever buzzword hits your hot button.

The viewers were tremendously interested in the Gulf War, so the Gulf War was
a hot marketing tool. They had to push it one way or another, and since they
knew they'd lose access to it if they pushed against it, they pushed for it.
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
  'U`
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: SPINDOCTORS
Date: 29 Aug 92 04:33:46 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

Rush has stated several times that he plays music based on the quality 
of the music, not the politics of the musician.

In doing so, he hoists the politically correct crowd on their own petards.

Rush is tolerant.  Why can't the PCers be?

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Far left's new "bill of lefts"
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 00:05:00 GMT

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>                              Ammendment 3
>>No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered.  If by some fluke of
>>social engineering, war happens to errupt, soldiers will volunteer quickly,
>>defense industries will spring up from nowhere and we will defend
>>ourselves after a brief training period.

>    Unfortunately this can happen even to nations which maintain very 
>high levels of millitary preparedness. While the army of Great Britain at 
>the turn of the century was one of the largest and finest in the world, 
>it wasn't ready with either men or armaments for the onslaught of the 
>Germans in 1914. Under Kitchener's recruitment drives there were literally 
>hundreds of thousands of young men who joined the British Army and were 
>shipped to France with as little as 5 weeks training. Most of their training 
>consisted of learning how to march in formation (not very useful in a trench 
>war); some were issued rifles only days before they sailed.

>    I guess my point is that the US is in a similar situation today. Our 
>standing professional army is excellent, but if a major conflict comes 
>along that really threatens the US (something more challenging than a 
>bunch of Iraqi tankers hunkered down in the middle of a desert) I fully 
>expect that we'll have to enlist large numbers just as the Brits did in 
>'15 and '16.

No, I don't think the US is in a similar position today.  The readiness
of an Army is no longer determined soley by how many foot soldiers we
have.  People are, of course, the most important element, but technology
can't be overlooked.  We are capable, right now, of fighting any war we
need to.  We are prepared.  The great catastrophes of WWI and WWII would
never have happened most likely if the allies had truly been prepared.
Hoping for peace is nice, but history tells us that real peace is being
ready to fight.   
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Info on Dan Quayle's camera coverage during Buchanan's speech
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:27:04 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <BtGI03.Dwu@wpi.WPI.EDU> nyh@wpi.WPI.EDU (Nevo Y Hed) writes:
]I was more astonished when Mrs. Quayle gave her speech and mentioned
]Clinton's dodging the draft - forgetting to mention her own husband in
]the proccess.

As one who joined the reserve about the same time as DQ did, and as
one who, while in the reserves, DID go to Vietnam.... all I can say
is that DQ did a hell of a lot more than Clinton with regard to
his responsibilities. There is a reason they are called the
"reserves" - it is because they are there to be called when needed.

Clinton, on the other hand, joined ROTC, and then got out of his
obligations. There is a hell of a lot of difference. Quayle may have
been trying to avoid combat (proving he isn't stupid), but Clinton
avoided all obligations.


-- 
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
 - - Support ALL of the bill of rights, INCLUDING the 2nd amendment! - -
 - - It is not enough to be right. One must also be effective! - -
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Conservative Chronicle Commercials
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:06:59 GMT

    Well, I noticed today that Rush has updated his CC spot (the one I was 
criticizing a while back for using conspiracy theory style arguments about
liberal papers which allegedly buy columns and then shelve them so that 
other papers can't get them.

    Today Rush's commercial was more specific, saying that this is 
something that happens in markets with 2 newspapers. That explained to 
me a lot about my previous objections, but it still left me a little 
confused.

    The town I live in (Bloomington, Indiana) isn't very large, and it 
has only one newspaper. Yet when I visit my corner news stand, I can buy 
papers from New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Indianapolis, 
and Louisville (in addition to the local Herald Telephone). I couldn't 
say for sure, but I'd speculate that the news stands are similar or even 
better stocked in towns big enough to support 2 newspapers. So my problem 
is that I'm still not convinced that there's anything to be gained by 
buying columns with the express intention of shelving them even in a 2 
paper market. If people want to read conservative columns they can get 
them even in areas with *no* local newspaper. 

   If newspaper editors in 2 paper markets really *do* shelve columns, 
then I guess that explains why there are an ever decreasing number of those 
markets (i.e.- they're driving themselves out of business via inane business 
practises and changing back into one paper markets).

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3981 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4847
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:17:52 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1847@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>
> Last weekend two reporters admitted medias current love affair with
> Bill Clinton during CSPAN interview.
>
>   Carl Cannon - Knight Ridder Newspapers
>                 National Political Correspondant
>
>         quotes - "Republicans have a good case for claiming bias."
>                  "Some people in press fell in love with him".
>                                                    [Bill Clinton]
>                  He also noted that the reason the bias is so great is
>                  probably due to the fact that the press was undoing the
>                  negative attacks they made on Clinton during the pri-
>                  maries. He thinks they may be overcompensating. This
>                  bias should end and he thinks that the press will be 
>                  fairer in future. (ie - the press profits from a close
>                  race).
>
>  Michael Duffy - White House Correspondant for Time.
>
>         quotes - "Media fell in love with Clinton."
>                  "Time is not perfectly objective."
>
>                  After admitting bias he said that the degree of bias 
>                  should decrease and that fair coverage might be possible
>                  in future. He was very astonished at callers who said
>                  time was not objective. Almost laughing that anyone would
>                  even think that time is tring to be objective. He did note
>                  that time used to be pro-republican but has drastically  
>                  changed. I could not tell if this was a joke.
>
> During Reliable Sources on CNN this weekend Nina Totenberg responding to a 
>claim by republicans that the media was promoting Bill Clinton replied -
>(I paraphrase) She noted that she has received lots of calls about the sexual
>lives of many republicans and stated that she usually ignored these messages
>left on her voice mail. She warned that she might have to look into these
>now. 
>
> This is incredulous. Her response to a bias charge was to become more biased.
>We the american people are now being threatened by the Media Elite for ex-
>posing them for what they are. The ratings will only plumet with these types
>of responses. 
>
> Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

Nina Totenberg really irks me.  There's something about her that makes me
want to be uncivilized.  Such a winer and blatantly liberal.  Her vendetta
for Judge Thomas was despicable.  

ted
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4274 alt.politics.elections:12400 talk.politics.misc:43704
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Remarks by William Bennett (text)
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:40:31 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu writes:

> >WILLIAM BENNETT:
> >Rather, we're seeking to
> >honor and to affirm what is best in us, what Lincoln has called "the better
> >angles of our nation." [Quotes mine.]

> The Lincoln quote, it pains me somewhat to say, should be "the better angels
> of our nature."  Is that really what the Republican National Committee's
> own transcript said, "better angles of our nation"?  Geez, they might
> have a point about this Cultural Elite business, after all.

The G.D. Spradlin character in "Apocalypse Now" (the general in the
trailer home) uses the Lincoln quote and also prefaces it with "what
Lincoln has called..." Spradlin massacres the pronounciation, though, so
it seems to come out, "the bitter angles of our nature."

Bennett probably mines the movies for his best lines, like his mentor,
Ronald "go ahead and make my day" Reagan.

John
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Who Said Media Was Supposed To Be Unbiased?  (was Re: Media Bias at RNC)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 01:47:58 GMT

In article <1832@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>  The medias popularity was already pretty low before this issue happened.
> They are showing the american people that the republicans and Rush Limbaugh
> were right all along. In case you havent noticed it yet, the conservative
> strategy has been well thought out and may come to a wonderful climax.

Isn't it wonderful how the meanings of words change. Once "conservative" and
"liberal" meant that you favored a style of government that minimised the
impact of government on individuals, that promoted a careful and reasoned
approach to decision making, for fear that a progressive government would
destroy important individual rights in the rush to solve the problem of the
moment... to trade the future in favor of the present. A conservative approach
that actively devended liberties.

Now "conservative" means "moral controls and economic license", and "liberal"
means "free lunches and no responsibilities". No, wait, neither "side" in this
tweedle-dee-tweedle-dum war wants to take responsibility for anything.

And they've both forgotten that "liberal" once included "free enterprise", and
"conservative" implied "conservation". And they're both pumping more money
into a cracked vessel... who cares  if it leaks...
-- 
Peter da Silva.  <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
 `-_-'   "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
  'U`  
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nyh@wpi.WPI.EDU (Nevo Y Hed)
Subject: Re: Funny quote just heard on Rush
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 21:19:00 GMT

In article <170hrkINN6i7@agate.berkeley.edu> schubert@united.berkeley.edu (John Schubert) writes:
>I just heard on today's program the following:
>
>Rush said that he saw a funny sign on the floor of the Convention last night:
>
>	Woody Allen: Bill Clinton's family values advisor


	I seem to have missed one thing on that joke, where is the
part that sez that Woody is even a democrat not to say that he
actually has any affiliation [besides possibly registring and voting
as one] with the democratic party.


	-Nevo

-- 
Nevo Y. Hed ............. nyh@wpi.wpi.edu .....................................
++1-508-754-2491 ........ CS student, Worcester Polytechnic Institute .........
"I like my cigar too, but I take it out of my mouth from time to time" G.Marx .
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4209 alt.politics.bush:3887 alt.politics.elections:12259 talk.politics.misc:43363
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Funny quote just heard on Rush
From: rdale@cstp.umkc.edu
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 04:07:19 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UM - Kansas City, Computer Science

>   concerning Rush's joke that he saw a sign about Slick Willie's
>   family values advisor being Woody Allen:

>> 	I seem to have missed one thing on that joke, where is the
>> part that sez that Woody is even a democrat not to say that he
>> actually has any affiliation [besides possibly registring and voting
>> as one] with the democratic party.
> 
>    Ah, Nevo, Nevo, Nevo.  I believe the remark was made in jest.
>    Now what can we learn from this?  Why, that ultra-liberals have
> no sense of humor... except when making cruel (and often false)
> remarks about Dan Quayle.

	Hey, this could surpass blonde jokes!  Here's my collection so far:

  1. Did you hear that Woody Allen is now Slick Willie's family values
     advisor?

  2. At the wedding, Woody has asked Roman Polanski to be the best man.

  3. Woody will be giving the bride away -- to himself.

  4. The rice the guests throw will contain no MSG.

  5. How many times does 56 go into 21?