HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 1/25/93
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 28 Jan 93 11:24:51 CST


In article <1993Jan27.203039.20059@Princeton.EDU>, nfs@elan (Norbert Schlenker) writes:
> In article <1993Jan27.110120.26392@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> >
> >Rush (and others) comments have been quite negative (see above).
> >
> >Meanwhile both the Stock market and Bond martkets continue to rise.
> >A story in the Wall Street Journal yesterday (Tues, Jan 27, 1993,
> >page C1) tells how investers, after fearing last Sept that a Clinton
> >presidency would result in exploding deficits, are now convinced 
> >that Clinton is will reduce the deficit and that interest rates will 
> >remain low.  Long term (30 year) interest rates continue to fall.
> 
> Meanwhile, events overtake Mr. Anderson.  A story in the WSJ today
> (Wed, Jan 28) tells how investors, after realizing that they have
> been duped and got a little overenthusiastic on Monday, sell the
> 30 year bond down close to the levels prevailing before Bentsen's
> gallant foray.

1) The fact still remains that the Monday reaction of Wall Street was
	"overenthusiastic" while Rush's was gloom and doom.
2) The story in the WSJ on Wed did not say "duped".  It did say profit
	taking after a big run-up, which is to be expected.
3) The Bond market is still higher than it was before Bentsen's comments.

> >Small stocks (small buisnesses that create most new jobs) have 
> >especially been going up as Wall Street bets that those buisinesses
> >will have increasing profits.
> 
> To borrow a phrase, you may as well climb onto this gravy train.  It's
> quite clear that small businesses are going to make out like bandits
> during the Rodham administration - hell, their customers are going to
> be rolling in the green stuff after being laid off by the local defense
> plant, paying an extra 50 cents a gallon for gas, and dropping a few
> extra dollars on their 1040 next April.

Wall Street does not share your pessimism...

-- 
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:13854 talk.politics.misc:69794
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.fo
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 11:34:29 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

> >Because they know that the higher the tax rates, the more individual
> >companies will be willing to pay in order to get a loophole.
> 
>  Could we call that "Greed".

No, we call that "survival". A company that uses the tax laws to the
best advantage will sell products cheaper than it's competitor. Who are
you going to buy from?


--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13520 alt.politics.clinton:20983 alt.politics.bush:16276 alt.politics.homosexuality:10081
From: owen@autodesk.com (D. Owen Rowley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:13:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.homosexuality

In article <1jm9qnINNfo6@transfer.stratus.com>, markc@eomer.hw.stratus.com (Mark Christensen) writes:
> >My problem, you see, is that I have never seen Levitical writings used
> >as explicit reasons against *any* sort of behavior other than
> >homosexuality.
 
> You mean like witchcraft or adultery or murder or etc.  C'mon, of course
> it has been.  Besides, the NT also condemns homosexual behavior.

don't forget fiber mixing.

By the way. Wiccecraft is the religion of my ancestors, with roots and
traditions as deep as those exported from the middle east by the by the
Yahweh cults. It is recognised by our government as a legitimate 
religion, and enjoys the same constitutional privileges as any other
religion.

and 

Adultery is a contact sport second only to footbal in this country.

The Bible seems to be of two minds regarding murder, and makes several 
references that contradict the commandment against it.

There is one in Psalms that exhorts the chosen people to smash their
enemys babies heads on the rocks!

> > I'm curious to know which laws, according to the
> >English translations of the Old Testament, are as severe as Lev 18:22,
> >and whether evangelical Christians are as emphatic about enforcing
> >those laws as the one regarding queerness.

> You do not seem to understand the point.  It is not severity that
> matters and it is not law enforcment that most Christians are attempting.
> Sin is sin, plain and simple.  Severity is meaningless.  Sin separates
> us from God, no matter how "big or small".  And it is God who will meet out
> the punishment, not your fellow man.

You don't seem to understand  that some fundamentalist groups want to
make this a christian fundamentalist nation, with the bible as the 
ultimate authority for civil rule.

Sin is sin, sin is not necesarily crime.
For those of us who do not believe in the religions of the Yahweh cults
the bible is nothing more than ground up trees and ink.

> >...other "stuff" deleted because I'm just plain tired of repeating
> myself.  Someone who doesn't want to listen, won't.  No use arguing.

is there an echo in here ?

LUX ./. owen

--
D. Owen Rowley {uunet,fernwood,sun}!autodesk!owen, owen@autodesk.com
[ EU-PHORIA: A STATE OF WELL BEING ]
Euphoria is my natural state, I do what I enjoy and an abundance 
of all good fortune comes to me for it.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: New Kervorkian/Death Update?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:57:12 GMT



In article <1993Jan22.112214.5152@memstvx1.memst.edu> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.e
du writes:
>Rush did a new "Dr. Kervorkian/Death Update" yesterday (1/21/93) with a
>really cheesy folky new theme? Anybody heard of it?
>
>Lyrics include:
>"Well, I'm not afraid of dying..."
>and chorus "it's cold, really? cold, way down there..."
>
>singer backed by banjo and drums.
>
>Any clues? Send 'em in to 'HIT' LIST H.Q...
>

It is a song by Blood, Sweat and Tears.
-- 
           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
             Win Twins!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: staggers@cup.hp.com (Ken Staggers)
Subject: HP Guy on Rush Limbaugh
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:12:20 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8.1]

Very interesting to hear that he was suspended.  Must have mentioned something
that was still company confidential.  Anywaye, one correction I would like to
make, and maybe someone can send this to Rush:

John Young is no longer the CEO of Hewlett-Packard.  He was replaced in late
October by Lew Platt.  Young, along with Apple's Sculley, are big Clinton
supporters.  Either Hewlett or Packard or both are still big Republican
backers and did not flock to Clinton's side.  I do not think Platt's political
leanings have been made public yet.

--Ken
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: "Trivial" Felonies (Was: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:52:45 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.215040.1073@cbnews.cb.att.com> jmk@cbnews.cb.att.com (joseph.m.knapp) writes:
>What I find interesting is that this appointment was supposed to be ground
>breaking in that Baird would have been the first woman in the AG role. She
>was a good example of a woman balancing her career and family life. So
>what do they "get" her on? Her means of procuring child care so that she
>could further her career. I don't consider this a coincidence. The so-called

	I was against Baird, but more because--
	
	1.  She broke the law
		(she had sworn to uphold)
	2.  She couldn't come up with a response better than, 
	"If I had known I was going to have this nomination, I wouldn't
	have done it."

	Obviously, if that's the best she can do, she's a damn moron
	and is an absurdly poor choice of AG.

	<"Wouldn't have done it?  Well no shit, honey, and if I had known
	there was a cop on that street corner this morning, I wouldn't 
	have been speeding.">


 -- new sig!  new sig!


-- 
Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape | Why not put me in your kill
trials are violent assaults on civil rights.   | file?  add: "/: rsrodger/h :j"
  =====boycott=is=coercion=is=censorship=is=closed minded=is=cowardice=====
	Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13905 talk.politics.misc:69951
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: What will Bush and Quayle do now?
From: medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu
Date: 26 Jan 93 10:30:03 -0500
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
 <15590.2b5ee646@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> <21745@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
Organization: Hiram College
Nntp-Posting-User: medkeffjs

In article <21745@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu writes:

> [responding to "What will the Quayles do now?"]  

> Marilyn Quayle quit her career for two resons:

  [gratuitous cheap shot deleted]

> 2) To be Dan Quayle's trophy wife. (Yuck--the ugliest trophy in Washington; but
>    I digress. To use a line from Rush Limbaugh: "She can't help the way she
>    looks!")

Well, I can understand how you might think she is the ugliest trophy in
Washington, if you see her while sitting in front of the TV musing about
how much hatred you have for the Quayles..... But most people who have
actually met Marilyn Quayle know the camera isn't kind: she is in fact
quite lovely. Don't believe me, I don't know her as well as liberal talk
show host Larry King, who says the same thing I do about this.

> who knows one of the Quayles to be a hypocritical bitch, and the other to be
> unemployed

I understand the former VP makes a few hundred thousand more dollars per
speech than you do, so since he can make more than most of our salaries
in one night he doesn't really need to be employed.

As for the gratuitous use of a sexist profanity..... I spent some time in
the Navy and I am sure I can out swear almost anybody here, but I wonder
if instead of taking the lazy way out and using third-grade words you could
apply just a few brain cells to the problem and tell us _why_ you think
she is a hypocrite and exactly _what_ concept you are trying to convey
when you call Marilyn a bitch.

                                         Jeff Medkeff
                                         medkeffjs@hiramb
                                         medkeffjs@hiramb.hiram.edu

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:50:01 GMT

> = (Norbert Schlenker) writes:
>> = ( Steve Novak) writes:

>>No they're not.  The Republican whiners, the poorest damn losers I've
>>ever seen, are asking stupid questions like this.  I truly could care
>>less.  Why?  Because this is the first Cabinet nomination in this
>>century to be voluntarily withdrawn.  Unlike John Tower the drunk being
>>defended through a bitter rejection vote by Congress, Clinton felt the
>>will of the people and acted immediately.

>President Rodham felt the will of the people.  I wonder if I, and the
>rest of the middle class, can get him to feel our will for our long
>denied tax cut.

Norbert, you poor baby.  Still not dealing with that fear of intelligent
women, I see.

>>Besides, Bush violated the law in Iran-Gate (at the very least, lying to
>>Congress), yet he took office.  He actually BROKE THE LAW HIMSELF.
>>
>>Whaddya think of that, John?

>We'll let John speak for himself. 

That's damn big of you, Norbert.

>What you should ask yourself is
>whether lying to Congress should even be a crime.  If you answer yes,
>then ask yourself why Congress itself is exempt from this remarkable
>statute.  It wouldn't be because they'd all be in jail themselves,
>would it?  Naaah, couldn't be.

Christ.  I'm not gonna argue with an idiot that doesn't even understand
our three branches of government.



-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13406 alt.politics.clinton:20871 alt.politics.bush:16237 alt.politics.homosexuality:9996
From: johnch@test22.sun.com (Slam the Crank from Wheezer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Date: 21 Jan 93 17:36:32
Organization: Impossible Missions Force
	<1993Jan13.211311.25158@nwnexus.WA.COM> <C0u9Bq.Iw4@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: test22
In-reply-to: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu's message of Thu, 14 Jan 1993 10:04:37 GMT

In article <C0u9Bq.Iw4@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

   I think the problem arises when what you THINK is best for you represents
   a danger to either yourself or others.  Smoking pot may make you feel
   "happy and successful", but it is clearly a danger to yourself and others.

Yes.  You or someone standing next to you might be shot by the DEA
when they want to seize your property.

-- JC
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13494 talk.politics.misc:69219
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Broken Promises
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 02:02:28 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

> In article <1993Jan18.121836.8938@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com 
> >
> >Good thing Reagan kept his promise to balance the budget
> >by 1984.  Otherwise we'd have a $4 Trillion debt by now.
> 
> If you had really wanted Reagan to keep his promise you would have
> given him a Republican Congress to help him.  Instead you took away
> his Republican majority in the Senate and increased the Democratic
> majorities in the House.  So whose fault is the deficit and the debt?
> Look in the mirror.
> 
> >
> >-- 
> >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!)
> 
> 
> =============================================================================
> William Crosmun
> crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com
> 
> =============================================================================
> "No matter what the subject, there is some group which wants government
>  to regulate or  subsidize it, and  there are always those  in Congress
>  eager to take  over more power  and control.  But it  is impossible to
>  get something for  nothing.  The government  produces no goods, so  it
>  can hand out  favors to some  people only by taking  the earnings  and
>  property of others first."
> 
>                        From the Libertarian Party platform - 1992
> 
> =============================================================================


It was the same old Congress that gave Reagan what he wanted in 1980 that 
tried to reign in Reaganomics when it seemed to be causing huge 
skyrocketing debts as it's critics predicted.  The Senate was still in 
republican hands but lead the charge against Reagan on this.  Remeber 
the  "Biggest Tax Increase"?  Actually this was merely trimming away the 
biggest giveaway.  Not enough.  If this congress with it's boll weevil 
Dems and it's Republican Senate had not done this we would have 5 0r 6 
trillion dollar deficits.  Not $4 trillion.  Too bad the congress as a 
whole has not had the guts to put a halt to the craziness long ago.
Bush in 1979 calls it "Voodoo Economics" and in 1992 offers a budget of 
$1.52 Trillion Dollars that would give us an officially estimated deficit 
of $399 billion.  Crazy.

Pope Charles.   They put off payment for 12 years, now the bills are 
about to come due, and we have a nice Democratic Scape Goat in office to 
take the blame.   

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:34:59 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: School Choice won't work yet because... (Was Re: Choice?

In article <4LFPXB7w165w@major.panix.com>, dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
says:

>Mentally challenged? Oy, the PC police have raided a few craniums around
>here.

No, I'm NOT trying to be PC.  There are several types of mental, emotional
and psychological problems, all of which public schools are required to
equip themselves to deal with.  I just said 'mentally challenged' because
I didn't feel like typing all of this out.

>The public schools do provide programs for "special" children, though at
>a cost that is staggering (usually close to $500.00/day/child here in
>NY), and with results that could best be described as pitiful.

Fine.  Should they just stop?  Think this through.

>The actual cost would probably be negative; that is, private schools
>cost less than public schools to provide the same service.

This would only be true if we start shutting down the public schools.
If what you really want is the abolishment of the public school system,
then say so.  Otherwise, I still want to know how public schools can
meet all their requirements and still compete with the private schools.

>The only cost I can possibly forsee would be welfare payments for
>otherwise-unemployable school administrators (in france, they're called
>"legumes")

This I agree with.  I think most public school problems are more the fault
of the administrators than teachers anyway.  After all, administrators are
the ones who tell the teachers what they have to teach, whether they like
it or not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: staggers@cup.hp.com (Ken Staggers)
Subject: Re: Rush's Jan 19th Show: it was great
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:56:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8.1]

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
: staggers@cup.hp.com (Ken Staggers) writes:

: >Last comment...I think Rush is now picking on Carol Moseley Braun.  The last
: >two "updates" I heard were pretty hollow.  A hyphen in her official Senate
: >name?  And then on Zoe's confirmation hearing...no real comment since Braun
: >hadn't asked any questions yet.  Maybe he just really likes his update music.

: As a resident of Illinois I'm glad he's slamming on Ms. Moseley-Braun (you
: forgot the hyphen!).  She is an unqualified embarassment, basking in the
: excesses of her position in complete contrast to her campaign rhetoric.  


As a former Illinois resident who voted in the Illinois election in November,
we didnt have much of a choice.  To (almost) quote Rush from the day after
the election: "Rich Williamson was the weakest, weakest, weakest candidate...
and now we have a welfare cheat in Congress".  To quote Rich Williamson:
"Bill Clinton is for school reform, Rich Daley is for school reform, Rich
Williamson is for school reform" (I think it was reform or choice....I saw
the clip on the Today show when they were analyzing Republicans who were
getting away from Bush as far as they could go).  

--Ken


Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13904 talk.politics.misc:69949
From: markb@iplmail.orl.mmc.com (Mark Bower)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why are conservatives so stupid ?
Keywords: liberals, conservatives, intellegence
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:59:21 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta

In <C1FMr5.Fry@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
	kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

>  There are a great number of regularly posting liberals who apparently think 
>that conservative = idiot.  Most of the time this is an inference; others
>say it explicitly.  Why do liberals think they corner the intelligence market?

Elitism. It is the cornerstone of liberlaism. Like Rush ( the band ) says in the
song "Witch Hunt"; an anti-censorship song:

"Those who know what's best for us; must rise and save us from ourselves!"

I am personally distressed, however, that Hillary has been given only a 100 days!
Well, I guess it took FDR only six days to create the REST of the world!! :-)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 20:30:13 GMT

In article <ZBiPXB2w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>> >I don't know. But I'm pretty certain that, if there was such a thing as
>> >a "god", it wouldn't give a rat's ass how you chose to enjoy yourself,
>> >so long as you didn't hurt anyone.
>> 
>> Unless we can go ahead and invent God in our own image, this statement has
>> no basis.  If there were a God (and there is), He would not (does not) simply
>> conform to the way we would like Him to be.  If God does consider homosexuali
>> to be wrong, it doesn't matter a "rat's ass" whether we agree with Him or not
>
>Problem is here, that you're applying religious reasoning (hey! I just
>invented a new oxymoron!) to people who are not members of your
>religion.
>
>Unless your "god" runs for office here, and gets elected, opinions and
>beliefs attributed to him are no more valid than those attributed to
>Garfield the Cat.
>
>In other words, if *you* want to live your life according to a set of
>rules, hey, that's just fine - as long as they don't interfere with me.
>
>
>--
>"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
>dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
>                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke
>

This goes two ways...Don't inflict your morality/values/rules on me either.
Boy, sounds like anarchy to me.  Hey, has anyone got an example of
a society that flourished under total anarchy.  No?  Maybe that won't work.
Darn.  I guess we have to get pragmatic then.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.startrek.misc,alt.folklore.urban