HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Chameleon Clinton
In-reply-to: bdewey@grok116.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM's message of Tue, 03 Nov 92 15:04:30 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Oct29.150644.5971@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>
	<1992Nov2.023056.8398@umbc3.umbc.edu>
	<1992Nov03.100430.1413@ncrcae.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
Distribution: usa
Date: 5 Nov 92 13:05:53

My Webster's Third New World Dictionary does not give potatoe as an
alternate, but does give shameleon as an alternate.  Go figure.
 
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: A sad day for America
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 22:25:20 GMT

In <1dbp5qINN68r@spool.mu.edu>, Marc Rassbach writes:

>In article <92310.27666.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LM
>>I want to say something. I wanted anything BUT a Clinton presidency.  I voted
>>for Marrou, and hoped Clinton would lose. I would have even preferred (yecch)
>>....
>>National Health Care IS socialist.  Something needs to be done.  I think we
>>should look for other reforms first (judging by government's past record in
>>federal programs), such as malpractice and drug profit reform, but something

>As a Libertarian voter, how do you justify the stance of drug profit
>reform?

Gee...I thought you were going to give me a *difficult* question!  :-)
When a drug company creates a new drug, the government (the FDA, I think)
*guarantees* them a monopoly on that drug for 25 years.  Libertarians would
not give this government-guaranteed monopoly.  Thus if other companies could
independently develop this drug, they could also sell that drug.  The
competition would keep prices down, as companies couldn't charge whatever they
wanted for lifesaving and necessary drugs.  QED--notice that it's the ABSENCE
of government regulations which accomplish this!  It's totally consistent with
the Libertarian ideal.

Besides, where is it written that a Democrat has to support the entire and most
hard-core parts of the Democratic platform?  Where is it written that any GOP
members have to abide 100% by the GOP platform?  Similarly, Libertarians have
to live in the real world (though I will admit that we have more than our share
of Utopians), too.  We recognize that we can't implement *all* of our philo-
sophies or implement them too quickly.  Just because we're not considered a
"mainstream" party doesn't mean that we have to ignore reality!  Although the
utopian ideal would be lack of government control of almost everything, that
isn't possible, and all Libertarians except the anarchist fringe realize that.
Our dislike for government stems from the wealth redistribution functions of
government and from government's inherent inefficiency vis-a-vis the free
market.  Government itself isn't evil.  Misuse of it is.  And the less of it
there is, the less potential for government evil there is as well.  Still, I
can see some issues (health care *may* be one of them) where government is a
necessary evil.

I hope that I was able to show that there really are (gasp!) Libertarians who
attempt to address real problems realistically.  Actually, the vast majority
of us do.  Most of us "reasonable Libertarians" aren't as active as the fringe
LPers who frighten the mainstream.  That's sad.

Tim Irvin
****************************************************************************
Don't blame me!  I voted Libertarian.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett)
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 08:42:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.182120.27689@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> tcanham@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Canham) writes:
>Absolutely amazing.  A dope-smoking, draft dodging, skirt chasing, 
>peace hippie is President and Commander in Chief.
>
>George Washington has probably turned over in his grave.

So that's why Ben Franklin was never President.

Doesn't explain Jefferson (or Washington himself), though.

-mm-
-- 
Mark E. Mallett  MV Communications, Inc./ PO Box 4963/ Manchester NH/ 03108
Bus. Phone: 603 429 2223    Home: 603 424 8129     BIX: mmallett
Internet: mem@mv.MV.COM  ( uucp: ...{decvax|harvard}!mv!mem )
Looking for news and mail in southern NH / northern MA?  Try MV!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: You probably missed this
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:26:00 GMT

AP-Republicans-Out                                                


                                                ----------------  
                                                ! GENERAL NEWS !
---------------------------------------------------------------- 
                      Limbaugh, Ailes make surprise announcement
-----------------------------------------------------------------

^                                                         
(New York City) -- Long time Republican strategist Roger Ailes
and Rush Limbaugh, author of the best-selling book "The way
things out to be" held a joint news conference this morning to
announce that they are both homosexual and plan to be wed.

Ailes, holding a copy of Limbaugh's best-selling book, "The way
things out to be" described the decision as "difficult, yet
necessary."  Saying also, "drapes were cleaner... easier to
breathe... amazing results from the first day" he admitted that,
in fact, most hard-core Republicans are closet gays that have
yearned to be free for the past 12 years."

Holding a copy of his best-selling book, "The way things out to
be", in his formerly nicotine-stained fingers,  Limbaugh admitted
that although the recent Democratic victory in the presidential
election had come as a great shock, that both he and Ailes took
it as a sign from God that, quote "things had loosened up in this
country to the point where we could finally unmask ourselves." 
Limbaugh also reported "Wow, Spanish is easy!"

The happy couple told the assembled reporters of gifts they have
given each other to celebrate the occasion:  Limbaugh, author of
the best-selling book, "The way things out to be" gave Ailes a
specially-tailored shirt that sports a custom collar large enough
to be buttoned around Ailes' neck.   Holding a copy of Limbaugh's
best-selling book, "The way things out to be," Ailes described 
the relief he felt at actually being able to wear a tie again.
For his part, Ailes presented Limbaugh with a copy of the 
best-selling book "The way things out to be," for his collection.

Asked about their future plans, Limbaugh and Ailes said they
would honeymoon on a tramp steamer, describing the difficulty
they would have occupying a berth in the same standard size
stateroom at the same time.

Following their return to New York, Ailes described their plans
to create a child saying, "we have so much to give."  When
pressed on the question of how two gay men would be able to
create an offspring, Limbaugh, holding a copy of his best-selling
book "The way things out to be" in his formerly nicotine-stained
fingers answered, "Liposuction."  Adding, "After all, how much
television can we WATCH?"

APTV-11-10-92 0804CST<


+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 13 Nov 92 06:22:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <1992Nov12.123540.3910@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:

>In article <grendel.721584583@camelot>, grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>> In <1992Nov10.154146.3064@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>>In article <grendel.721369415@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>>>In <YOUNG.92Nov9124823@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:

>>>Wow!  Listen to this!  On the one hand, you have a liberal crying that 
>>>the court should be balanced.  Read that, more to the left. 	
> 
>> Of course more to the left, tweedledumb.  It sure isn't going to be
>> balanced by adding another Scalia or Thomas.

>C'mon, people.  The conservatives think it should be more to the
>right, the liberals more to the left.  It sure isn't going to be
>"balanced" either way, because both sides are *never* going to agree
>on it being balanced.

Four liberals, four conservatives, and a swing voter.  Sounds good to me.
Any objections?
Even if...nobody could claim the court is balanced now, and nobody could
claim that another conservative would increase the balance.  Yes?

>> I argue that a balanced court, _not_ a liberal-packed or a conservative-packed
>> court, would best serve the interests of the people.  Balancing Congress
>> doesn't work that way, and it doesn't work to have the executive and legislativebranches balance each other out; we've seen what happens, and it's called
>> gridlock.  On the other hand, balancing the court would ensure that decisions
>> are actually given some thought, rather than simply passed through as part
>> of an ideological agenda.

>Heh.  Balancing Congress doesn't work, putting the Prez and Congress
>in balance doesn't work, but we *sure* need a balance on the Supreme
>Court, yessir.  Best laugh I've had all day. Thanks.

The reason for gridlock in the previous examples is that the situation involves
conflict between two entities or conflict within an entity that allows the
minority very little influence.  The Court, on the other hand, is a single
entity, small enough so that productive discussion can actually take place,
where gridlock is simply not possible because a decision is mandatory, and
where partisan agenda, given that the Court is more balanced than it is now,
does not simply pass through on the strength of majority.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:8998 alt.politics.bush:13122 alt.politics.clinton:15747 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7898
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Debate: The Third Coming
Date: 3 Nov 92 20:29:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <LARRY.92Nov2143250@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>In article <1992Oct27.152149.10704@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>   In article <1992Oct26.223415.27381@u.washington.edu> gnat@stein.u.washington.edu (L Boyd) writes:
>
>   >Well said!  I am not so sure Clinton's plans are *the* answer, but
>   >the Democratic party did *not* come together by accident -> if 
>   >Clinton can do that with such a fragmented group o folks, he can
>   >probably work with congress.
>
>   You are right on one count.  The Democratic party did not come together!  
>   Where are Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and all the other left-wing wacos?  
>   You can bet they are just waiting in the wings for their two-faced boy 
>   to win, and then they will be running things again.
>
>   Ted
>
>See, Ted. This is precisely the problem. Anyone who is a democrat is
>automatically a full-blown left wing whacko, according to Rush and
>Dittodom. It seems that the concept of a moderate democrat just 
>terrifies you guys.
>
>Reality differs greatly.
>
Please, read my post and your post.  I said that Ted Kennedy and Jesse 
Jackson were left-wing wacos, you said that I said that anyone who is 
a democrat is a full-blown left wing whacko.  Do you think that Ted and 
Jesse are not left-wing wacos?  

Ted


-- 
Bill Clinton was voted best governor by his peers - 1988
Michael Dukakis was voted best governor by his peers -1986
            krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: PLEASE READ THIS POST (Part 2 of 2)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:17:15 GMT

In <1992Nov4.211047.1500@kpc.com>, Emmett Kilgariff writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.195018.23354@m.cs.uiuc.edu> watanabe@milton.cs.uiuc.edu (L
>>
>>Yes, but this helps the government anyways because it can
>>save 50 billion by sitting out the next desert storm, numerous
>>billions from lower damage to the environment, better
>>balance of payments because it doesn't have to import as
>>much gas etc.
>>
>>The point of the gas tax is not necessarily to raise money,
>>but also to save money through lower gas consumption.
>>

>A third point of the gas tax is to stop subsidize automobile use
>by other taxes. If a 50c/gal user fee means only auto users pay
>oor highway funds.

I completely favor "use taxes" and elimination of transportation subsidies.
You can raise the gas tax 50c per gallon (or even $1 per gallon) as soon as
you raise transit fares to $8 or $10 in order to eliminate THEIR subsidy.

The point is this:  Everyone is subsidizing almost everything.  We subsidize
tobacco (I know, that's stupid).  We subsidize farm products through price
supports which are designed to help the small family farmer but always manage
to line the pockets of the big farming conglomerates.  'End the subsidy for the
auto" is NOT a fairness issue for those who espouse it--it is strictly an
environmental issue for them, and I wish they would admit it and not use the
"subsidy" smokescreen.  The auto is *far* from alone in the subsidy department.

Tim Irvin
****************************************************************************
Don't blame me!  I voted Libertarian.
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:37:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <grendel.721285610@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <6815@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>>marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>$In article <1992Nov6.184705.198@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>>$
>>$George Bush said "Clarence Thomas was BEST qualified for the job."
>
>>$No one in political power either had the guts to say 'bullshit' or
>>$COULD say such.  ("Best qualified" is very subjective.  The best possible
>>$person in the land?  I highly doubt it.  The best minority who wasn't
>>$very contriversal and was most likely to hold an anti-roe viewpoint? 
>>$Probably.)  So instead of calling an ace an ace and a spade a spade,
>>$the committee attacked whatever they could to try to manufacture
>>$whatever they could get to say no.  Anitia Hill, well if they had
>>$brought it up right away, I'd bet it would have been handled alot
>>$less 'messy'.  The committee failed to take what Anitia said
>>$seriously.
>>$
>>$Either way, the post (in a political utopia) should be filled by the
>>$best person, reguardless of political stripe.  
>>$
>>$>Can we assume that "character doesn't matter" now, regardless of ideology?
>>$
>>$No, tis better to assume a political appointment was made to what
>>$(in utopia) should be a politically neutral office.  And (what could
>>$politition would want to stop that?) the opposing side used any tool
>>$they could get their hands on.
>>$
>>$Expect the Democratic choice to fair just as well.
>
>>Okay. Mario Cuomo "would be an excellent choice [for the Supreme
>>Court]." (MTV special) He sure seems to be the BEST qualified for the
>>job too. Right?
>
>He'd be a hell of a lot better choice than Thomas was.  The Court is supposed
>to be balanced.  Cuomo, a liberal, would do better than Thomas to balance out
>the ideology of the Court.

Crap.  I didn't hear any of you liberals whinning about balance when you 
had the court in your hip pocket.  After listening to you folks cry about 
the supreme court for the last several years I just have to smile when 
you accuse us of whinning about the presidential election.  We have got 
nothing on you.

Ted


-- 
            

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date:  8 Nov 92 02:38:56 GMT

In <1992Nov6.184705.198@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:

>In article <grendel.720981669@camelot>, grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>> In <4NOV199217324454@utkvx3.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
>> 
>> But the hypocrisy is what I'm concerned about; the hypocrisy of people who
>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> act as though Clinton is different from any other politician in the kinds of
>> decisions he makes and has made.

>"Hypocrisy"?  Oh, I can't let this one go without a pithy comment. :)

>If these things aren't an issue, as you seem to be claiming, then why:

>  -- was John Tower raked over the coals for womanizing?
>  -- did Douglas Ginsburg get savaged by the Senate for taking a toke?

Because some people think these things are important.  I don't agree.  IF
a guy is infidelitous or a pothead, that's not my business and I'm in no
position to pass judgement on him.  I don't even care, since those things
don't affect my life.  The things that I'm concerned about are along the
lines of passing the Brady Bill, instituting a draft, raising taxes, etc.
because they _do_ affect my life.  They're relevant.  Marijuana smoking is
not.

>You say it isn't an issue that Clinton did these things.

It's an issue for some people, but I think it's an utterly trivial one.

>  -- did Robert Bork get "borked" for being conservative?

Because the duty of the Prez is supposedly to appoint a justice with
political views that will even out the court.  The court was already conser-
vative when Bork was nominated; his obvious conservatism was not a fair
addition to an already biased court.

>  -- did Clarence Thomas get treated the way he did?

I don't think Thomas should have been treated the way he was.  I don't
think he should have been appointed, for the same reason I cited for Bork,
but the sexual harassment allegations were never proven, and I think the
Senate circus that went on concerning them was ludicrous.

>Can we assume that "character doesn't matter" now, regardless of ideology?

It doesn't matter to me.  Perhaps you misunderstand.  I'm not claiming that
no one cares about character.  I'm just saying that I do, and that IMHO
it should not be a political consideration.

>Perhaps we need to redefine the word.

That would be prudent.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush loses out to Madonna
Date: 9 Nov 92 00:13:39 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
#	_Sex_ has reached #1 on the Times Nonfiction Bestseller list, pushing
#Rush's book to Number 2 after only 8 weeks. That means that, not only will
#Madonna make a great deal more on here book (She has a $60million contract),
#but more people are buying it, too. No wonder Rush hates her so much.

Boy, this is old hat.

#	Since Madonna is more popular then Rush, does that mean the Madonna
#is more mainstream then Rush? Or, if Madonna is part of some radical fringe
#(as Rush claimes), is Rushs audiance simply a less popular, more whacko,
#fringe group?

Well, I prefer seeing Madonna in a teddy than Rush in one.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:27:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy

In article <grendel.720903878@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>Oh, you fucking ignorant reeking self-righteous factory of piety, shut
>yer yawning yap and go sulk in the corner.  It's assholes like you that
>
profanity, n. A linguistic device used solely by the unintelligent to
express opinions or ideas that they are otherwise incapable of
expressing (completely independently of their political affiliation).
>
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9643 alt.politics.clinton:17096
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 14 Nov 92 01:18:02 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <g9r19nq@rpi.edu>, jacksonk@polaris.cs.rpi.edu sez:
>In article <92317.231441MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>Perhaps my memory fails me, but I don't recall too many significant
>>instances of "liberals" fighting free speech,
>
>>Perhaps you can point out a few opposing examples for us?
>
>   Or how about the feminazi groups that try to ban porn be-
>	cause it's "harmful to women and children" ?  (watch a porn  and
>	you become a child molestor and a rapist!)

What about 'em?  Did you miss the fact that the ACLU and the majority
of feminists (and probably of "feminazis," whoever they're supposed to
be) opposed the Indianapolis ordinance litigated in _Hudnut_?

Or could you be arguing that all liberals are responsible for the
ravings of Andrea Dworkin?  Gosh, this sounds like a fun game: maybe
we can start by proving that all Republicans are for gun control since
Sarah Brady is.

Or maybe not.

-- 
			     819 F.2d 451

	Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com    ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: jpsb@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Re: Witch Hunt Time!!
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/JSC
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:35:00 GMT

>> To those who thought Bush had a chance...(Simon Booth)
>
>>   HA!
>
>> Let's make sure that there is no pardon for George, Ronny
>> and the rest of the gang.  I say we put them behind bars
>> where they belong.
>

There was once a time (not to long ago) when a president was respected by the american
people. Reasonable people could disagree and still respect one another. I see now that
these days are over for are once great country. Once the people that lived here had
the dicipline to take responciblity for thier actions, admit thier mistakes and go on`

the country is now in the hands of a new breed of american simikiar to the above
author.

God help us, we are not longer capiable of helping our selves.


jim shirreffs 

i speak for myself only.