HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:  Clinton, draft dodger.  YUP!
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:23:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Sep2.170420.9007@tellab5.tellabs.com>
linda@tellabs.com (Linda Jensen) writes:
>	do the dirty work.  And please don't try to equate the
>	Indiana National Guard with the jungles of Vietnam.

Why not?  Clinton, when asked on Good Morning America about his qualifications
to be commander-in-chief, said "As Commander-in-chief of the Arkansas
National Guard, I had to respond to extreme emergencies on several occasions.
There was a time when the Cuban detainees rioted and I had to restore order.
 . . . I don't think I'd be unprepared as a Commander in Chief."

Linda, I'd love to see you write that Clinton shouldn't "try to equate the
Arkansas (snicker snicker) National Guard with the jungles of VietNam.
Incidentally, Dan did serve his country - perhaps in a way that you'd like
to demean, but he DID serve.  Clinton, as has been shown recently, had his
Uncle postpone the selective service from taking him until he was safe.
Then he consistently lied about the whole thing.  I'd say it is a pretty sad
nominee for president who can be made to look like a lying wimp by the likes
of Dan Quayle.
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Marilyn Quayle
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:55:39 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


Everytime I saw Marilyn Quayle I always got a feeling that she reminded
me of some famous movie or TV character.  I finally figured out who Marilyn 
Quayle reminds me of  -  Mr. Ed !!

Wouldn't that make a good "update" theme song?

"A horse is a horse, of course, of course.."
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Polls and the Liberal Media
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:51:43 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

>
>Bush first fell behing Clinton big time after Perot dropped out...  
>a full month before the convention.  Bush hasn't gained much ground since  
>the RNC, but he hasn't lost much ground either.  So I don't think the  
>convention had much to do with it.

Let us begin a new discussion.  Monday night Mcneil/Lehier new hour had a 30
minute discussion about Polls and what thier place was in politics and
elections.  Bush has gained a lot of groud after the RNC.  What was it
before?  Clint 58% to Bush 32%? Some 26 points.  The most recent poll I have
seen is the Time/CNN poll taken Monday or Tuesday (August 30th?):

	Blinton:  46%
	Cush:     40%

Sheewww, that's a substantial difference folks.

But here's the real issue:  Every night after the DNC I saw as the first
story on the news on most every major news network the recent polling
information about Clinton's lead.  

Now, after the RNC what do we see?  I have only seen about 3 or 4 polls
showing Bush's comeback.  Boy I would like to get the solid info on this
because it could really be damaging.  Instead of Bush's comeback, what would
discussed was mainly the supposed sleeze in the Convention.  Two days after
the convention, the Atlanta Constitution ran a Saturday Headline showing a
poll about Bush's disapproval rating on the economy.

It went like this: "Do you feel the President has handled the economy
poorly?"

This is so pathetic.  What about "Do you feel the Congress has handled the
economy poorly?"

And to have this 2 days after the convention.  What blatent partisanship. 
And the networks are bleeding on the floor with guilt with the polls.

======================================================
 Teddy Kalivoda  ------------> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu 
   University of GA Computing & Network Services       
     Inst.of Higher Education               
=====================================================                                                                          
	"The sleep of reason gives rise to monsters"
				        (Goya, Caprichos)
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:  Clinton, draft dodger.  YUP!
Date: 4 Sep 92 17:23:24 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Sep3.222236.22226@lsil.com>
mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
>What does military service, including the NG have to do with the ability to
>serve as commander-in-chief, anyway?  I fail to see this.  It's certainly

The attribute of military service is relevant to one's ability to understand
how the armed forces should be controlled, of course, but that is not
the point.  One more time, Mitch.

Mr. Clinton lied repeatedly about the events surrounding his eventual
avoidance of the draft.  When caught, he fessed up.  Sort of.  Until
more facts came out.  Then he said "The people are all dead and I am
not going to say anything more."  The man is a self serving liar.
That is the point.  Many people found honorable ways to mesh their
anatgonism toward the Vietnam War and their own beliefs.  Clinton,
on the other hand, had his uncle pull strings.  Later, he lied about it.
How much clearer do you need this message, Mitch.  Clinton is, to use
your words, a "chickenhawk".  He avoids military service, lies about it
then says alot of testosteronic stuff like "well the first thing ah'd
do is an airstrike".  Mr. Bravery.  Audie Murphy almost.  Your choice.
Corporal Billie Bob Clinton.  Now.  Is that clear, Mitchie?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Closet Bigotry (was: Re:Buchanan's speech)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 02:11:55 GMT


In a previous article, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) says:

>tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>>ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>>>Nonsense.  Many theists have presented such arguements before, but in the
>>>final analysis, they are in truth hiding behinfd their metephysical beliefs,
>>>claiming they feel homosexuality is wrong because their god has said it is,
>>>instead of admitting that they are opposed to homosexuality because they
>>>find it personally distasteful.
>
>>The above remarks are not an argument.  They serve only to deny my thesis by
>>implicating motivations of the argument giver.
>
>    I'm afraid Ted is right here, Kelly. You seem to be accusing those 
>"theists" of intellectual dishonesty without considering the possibility 
>that their religions may in fact really preach intolerance towards 
>homosexuality as a positive moral virtue.
>

I don't doubt that many religions do, in fact, preach so.  However, as I
stated, "In the final analysis...", it makes no difference whether this
intellectual dishonesty comes from the pulpet or the follower, it IS the
primary reason.

>    I'm afraid that when you get right down to it, the people who find 
>homosexual behavior simply distasteful are not the greatest of your 
>worries. In all honesty, I admit that *I* find homosexuality distasteful, 
>but I support equal rights for gays.
>

I thank you for that support, in the name of the gay community, but I have
to disagree that this is not my greatedst worry.  With groups like the OCA
and TVC against us, actively trying to have anti-descrimination laws overturned
and trying to enact legislation to forever prevent homosexuals from being
granted rights which heterosexuals take for granted, there is no other
group which IS more worrysome.


>--
>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:  Clinton, draft dodger.  YUP!
Date: 3 Sep 92 22:11:38 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 28043@cs.rose-hulman.edu, pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D) writes:
>> 	Guess it's o.k. to 'fight the good fight' as long as others
>> 	do the dirty work.  And please don't try to equate the
>> 	Indiana National Guard with the jungles of Vietnam.
>All right, so Dan didn't go to Vietnam.  So Slick Willie didn't go either.   
>SO WHAT?!?!?  I'm getting sick and tired of this debate.
>When Vietnam happened, both those guys were under 25, I know (under 21, I  
>think).  Haven't you done stupid stuff in your youth?  Stuff you regret?
>Stuff that, if you ran for public office, would be embarrassing to you?
>I know I have.

The who issue is silly and stupid, however they are going to continue with
it because that's all they have.  Yesterday, the chief chickenhawk himself,
Danikins started blasting Clinton as a draft-dodger.  Calling the kettle
black is more befitting of this ridiculous accusation.


---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dhanson@nyx.cs.du.edu (David L. Hanson)
Subject: A few quotes from a few years ago
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 20:10:12 GMT

> From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
> Subject: A few quotes from a few years ago

> Below are several quotes from the history of our nation.  It is often argued
> that the US was not founded on Christian principles.  Perhaps the US
> has never been a Christian nation, but to deny that it was founded on
> Christian principles is ludacrous.  Perhaps Verna Hall said it best,  "The
> concept of a secular state was virtually non-existent in 1776 as well as in
> 1787, when the Constitution was written, and no less so when the Bill of Rights
> was adopted.  To read the Constitution as the charter for a secular state is to
> misread history, and to misread it radically.  The Constitution was designed
> to perpetuate a Christian order."

THANK YOU, Mr. Page for this post.  Anyone that has any knowledge at all
of history (which does not include many of today's misled college
students) will know that the USA was founded as a CHRISTIAN nation.

The liberal (and heathen) Warren court overturned two centuries
of precedence when they banned prayer and the Bible from public schools.
The first amendment was never intended to separate the CHRISTIAN church
from the government.  It was ONLY to keep the government out of the
the church.  Mr. Bush and Mr. Quayle are trying in a small way to do
what our country's founders wished; that this country would always be
a Christian nation.  The founders predicted dire consequences if we ever
leave our Christian faith.  Those consequences are being played out
before us in our crime rate, baby-killing, family breakups, and homosexuality.

We as a nation are paying and will continue to pay for our sins until and
unless we return to the one and only true God and to the only Saviour,
Jesus Christ.  I predict that we have not seen anything yet as far as
riots and civil insurrection.  Just wait until a few more generations of
children are raised without fathers, without strong moral teaching
(how often do I read postings "I am going to let my child decide his
own religion and values; I don't want to influence him", THEY HAVE GOT
TO BE JOKING, but woe to us they are not), and without the love AND discipline
that God intended them to have.  No government program, no amount of
money, nothing will make up for a father AND a mother teaching their
children to obey and live for Jesus Christ.

I hope that others are as sick of I am of a permissive, there is no
right or wrong society where any stand for decency is attacked and
mocked.

Yes, I will proudly vote for Mr. Bush and for Mr. Quayle.  Even if they
lose, I know that God will reign forever so I am at peace.

David

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life:
no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"

Disclaimer: this is being posted from an account that has nothing to
do with my employer.
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Info on Dan Quayle's camera coverage during Buchanan's speech
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:34:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Aug25.005513.21969@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>In article <1992Aug24.105034.3285@walter.cray.com> toma@romulus.cray.com (Thomas Arneberg) writes:
>
>	[re: marilyn quayle at the convention]
>
>>What I remember her saying is that NOT ALL the early baby-boomers were part
>>of the counter-culture (as they may have appeared to be in the media of the
>>60's). As examples, she said not all of them did drugs, dropped out of
>>school, dodged the draft, etc.
>
>	Well, it's still ironic that she would mention it, considering her
>husband was a dope smoking draft dodger. Maybe she figures that she can't
>do anything to Quayle that he hasn't already done to himself.
>
>	Here's a thought: If Dan Quayle hadn't smoked dope in college, would
>he have gotten better grades? It would certainly explain his lack of ambition.
>

Could you qive your source for Quayle having smoked cannabis in college.

Thanx Alex,

tk
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 05:52:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug31.180737.15129@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>I've found recently that his show has become a three hour campaign commercial
>for Bush.  Equal time, anyone?

Well, as The Politically Incorrect One often states, he doesn't have to
give equal time, because he *is* equal time.  Since Perot dropped out,
the news media has done nothing but roll over on their backs and wave
their legs in the air whenever reporting anything about Clinton or
Gore.  But they slam Bush and Quayle every chance they get.  Especially
Quayle.  Anyone catch the Emmy Awards?

>I just find it a bit distasteful and distressing that his show has become
>one big campaign commercial.

I don't think his show has become "one big campaign commercial".  If it
had, I'd probably quit listening too, because I despise Bush.  I despise
Clinton more, though, and Gore is downright scary.

I'm probably going to vote for Dave Barry this time.  It's time for
an Anarchist in the White House.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 30 Aug 92 22:07:34 GMT
Organization: Amiga makes it possible
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith

In article <1992Aug28.185900.6768@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> In article <1854@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>
> |>  The entire system is rigged. Remember Jerry Browns speeches. He was right
> |> on the money about political corruption. Until this year most politicians
> |> on the hill were reelected rather easily. No one could vote them out.
>
> 	What country are you from? Where I live, the oppertunity to vote
> out a congress member comes up every couple of years, regardless of who's
> in office. It sounds like you've been listening to Jerry Brown (Or Rush
> Limbuagh) long enough to completely detach from reality.
>

No, we've seen the congressional franking priviledge abused over and over
again.  Fact:  the amount of money congress is spending on mail this year
is 2x higher than last year.  Campaign related, I say.  And a huge benefit
for the incumbent.

Maybe YOU are detaching from reality by using Limbaugh as a crutch?

> |>  Do you honestly think the people would have allowed government to go
> |> into such tremendous debt if they had direct control over the money
> |> the government was stealing from them ?
>
> 	Yes. Most people in this country are quite happy with their reps,
> although they don't like congress as a whole. While most of the country
> is displeased with the government debt, those same people would be even
> more displeased if they were forced to fork out more taxes or lose the
> services that are the source of the debt. Again, what they want is to
> take away other people services while preserving their own.
>

Yeah?  So what?  What are you going to do about it?  People are already
dumping plenty of those congress critters you say they like.  A record
year this year for turnover.

--
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
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: George Will on the GOP
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:56:45 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 13289@hemlock.cray.com, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>Probably because it then became clear that Bush would lose (his only hope
>being that the Dems would self destruct at their convention).
>George Will correctly realized that the Republicans only chance was to "Thatcher"
>Bush - Dump him and run someone else.  Kemp could win this year.  Bush cannot.
>Doesn't mater.  The economy has sucked under Bush, so the public will 
>not give Bush a second chance.  Running a campaign where the major selling
>point is that he will not do in his second term what he promised not to 
>do in his first term but did anyway is no way to get re-elected.

I wish I could share your optimism, however I believe that the bushman
has more dirty tricks up his sleeve.  They are dwelling on Vietnam War
era "draft-dodging" and 123 tax increases.  I guess you have faith that
people are not so ignorant as to believe this stuff.

Thanks for the inspiration.

---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: toma@romulus.cray.com (Thomas Arneberg)
Subject: Re: Why Bush whould/will burn for the delay in florida
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:38:18 CDT

In article <1992Aug31.184914.25489@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>If the president had violated
>the law and sent the troops in early, the political remifications would
>have been nil, vs. waiting for the governers call, which carries the
>obvious consequences. The fact stands that bush had a great oppertunity
>to show himself as sympathetic to domestic issues, and he blew it.
>
>	It doesn't matter whos fault it was, GHWB could have saved the
>day, and declined. It's his loss.
>-- 
>                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with Alex on this one! (Maybe now
I'll "get what I deserve," as his previous .sig said...)

Bush has a real talent for constantly blowing opportunities. Who would've
believed a year and a half ago that his 90% approval could possibly plummet
to where it is now? Bush has *LOUSY* political instincts. He has long been
criticized for this sort of thing in the Conservative Chronical, where many
conservative editorialists have loathed him since 1990.

I still have to vote for him, though. I'd rather have a lousy politician
who stumbles around beleiving half-heartedly in less government, than one
who has great political instincts and will use his talents to fight hard 
for MORE federal government.

Bush may not be a true conservative, but as a pragmatist I'll have to
prefer him over a far worse choice in Clinton.

  - Tom A.
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
;-) I'd rather be ____  Thomas R. Arneberg   | Inet: toma@cray.com
:-) singing in a |____| Senior IC Design Eng.| UUCP: ...!uunet!cray!toma
:-) Barbershop  _|   _| Cray Research, Inc.  | CLAIM TO FAME: Loni Anderson 
:-) Quartet!   (_)  (_) Chippewa Falls, Wisc.|   went to my high school 
---------------------------------------------+------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5007 alt.rush-limbaugh:4192
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: The George Bush Fan Club?
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 92 08:03:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep1.181026.25252@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>Clinton took more bashing from the media than has ever been unleashed on
>a public figure regarding, inhalation, Gennifer, draft-dodging, taxes,
>etc., etc.  What about that?

Clinton definitely took a pounding... but all of it was pre-Perot-
withdrawal.  Now, all three networks are practically part of Clinton's
campaign organization.

Remember Rush saying, in the Clinton campaign's darkest days when it
looked like he'd come in a distant third, that Perot was going to
withdraw, and when he did, the media was going to perform the most
heroic act of CPR on Clinton that's ever been seen this side of a
"Rescue 911" episode.   He sure pegged that one.
--
Dave Barry in '92.  It is time for an Anarchist in the White House.
-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 15:33:40 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Slavery and the Civil War (was Re: Quayle on abortion)
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <nate.511@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>
>>celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>>> The slaves may be free because the majority decided they should be. The 
>>>slavery issue may have just been one of the first divisive issues used by
>>>socialists. The reason slaves were kept was that the government decided
>>>not to give them rights. Maybe a vote would have saved thousands of lives.
>
>>Are you serious?  Do you *really* think a vote could have prevented the
>>Civil War?  If thousands of people were willing to die over the issue,
>>what on earth makes you think they'd have listened to a vote?
>
>    I personally don't think a vote over slavery would have prevented 
>the American civil war because freedom for slaves wasn't the reason that 
>the war started in the first place. The actual outbreak of hostilities 
>was caused by the secession of the southern states. Some of the combatants 
>in the war didn't have particularly strong feelings about slavery one way 
>or the other.
>

Thank you, Nathan, for supplying the concrete example I lacked.

What we had then was a VOTE by the southern states to secede.  Did it
work?  Did it settle the issue, Steve?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Quayle doesn't inhale (which explains a LOT)."
                   ---William Hsu
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------