HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The "Liberal Media" Criticizes Clinton
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 01:56:37 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> In article <1993Jan19.073259.25121@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) says:
> 
> >>In that case, you have got to admit that Clinton is a moderate and
> >>the liberal media don't like him.  Are you willing to make such an
> >>admission?
> >No,  it is a tenant of Republican Faith that "Clinton is a Liberal (amen)."
> 
> Actually, I don't think Clinton is much of -anything-.   He will be liberal,
> moderate, conservative, Nazi or Socialist, whatever he thinks people will lik
> so they'll vote for him.  He's finding out that, once you make President, tha
> doesn't work too well anymore, because no matter what you do, you're going to
> piss -somebody- off.  Might as well stick to your guns, or you'll piss
> -everybody- off.  Maybe he'll figure that out sometime in the next four years
> 
> >Therefore they must say that Clinton is a closet liberal who talks like
> >a moderate, acts like a  moderate, and is criticized by the press
> >like a moderate would be.
> 
> I'm sure Clinton has some real convictions, deep down inside somewhere, but
> he's given little indication of what they actually are.  He could be a closet
> Dittohead for all I know.  He's on all sides of all issues, so I can't say.
> 
> >But you know the old Republican Duck Test;  if it looks like
> >a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a liberal.
> 
> Clinton walks looks like a pig, runs like a hippo and brays like an ass.
> So, what the hell is he?
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
>  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
>  kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------


As
long as he is not what George Bush has been for the last four years.
The next few months are going to be damned interesting.

--
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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Pro-Choice Military (Was: Rush Military Record)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:12:46 GMT

roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby) writes:

 >In article <1993Jan20.161333.2300@athena.mit.edu>
 gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez) writes:
  [...]
  >>I guess if he [clinton] enters a war where they need to draft I
  >>can opt not to be drafted.  If it were Bush or Perot sending
  >>me I would go, if the little panderer Bill Clinton tries I 
  >>guess I'll have to get an ROTC deferment until I draw a high 
  >>draft number.

 >Our involvement in Viet Nam was NOT a success.
 >I would prefer to have a leader that knew it was a mistake 
 >at the time and would therefore avoid such fiascos in the 
 >future to one who still pretends that our Viet Nam involvement 
 >was a good thing.
 >Deciding whether to fight in a war on the basis of whether 
 >you like the supreme commander of the forces sounds 
 >a lot more cheesy to me than a decision based on whether 
 >you think the war is justified or not.

But fundamentally you believe that it is the right of each citizen to
personally decide which wars he is willing to fight when called upon?

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Supposed Bentsen Quote
Keywords: 4 names
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 19:29:00 GMT

dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>>Today Rush played (twice at least) what he claimed was the recorded voice
>>>of an interview with Senator Lloyd Bentsen, now Secretary of the Treasury.
>>>In this supposed recording, a voice said something on the order of
>>>"Those middle class voters will fall for a lie about tax cuts every time."

>>    Relax, Tom, it was just Rush being his typical substantive self -
>>making up things that he wished his opponents had said and then making
>>recordings of a caller who sound vaguely like Bentsen saying the things
>>Rush made up.

>Well, Nate, you're usually right on target with objectivity, but here, I
>have to wonder if you're pulling a "Rush" on us.   Your statement, above,
>sounds like fact--that you _know_ something about it.  But are you just
>tossing it out there to see who will ask?  :)

    Well, I do get my facts mixed up more often than I'd care to admit, 
but in this case I happened to hear both the playbacks that Tom mentioned 
*and* the original call from the guy who sounds like Bentsen. Bo identified 
the guy in advance as somebody who sounds like Bentsen, and when he got 
on the air and Rush heard for himself he took a break to make up some 
phrases that he wanted the caller to say for him (in very much the same 
vein as they did with the caller who sounded like Clinton).

>I didn't hear that RL show, so this is the first I've heard of my former
>senator's "quote" (public confession) But, do _you_ know the real facts
>on this thing?

    Yes, I'm admit that I'm relying on what I heard through my fallible 
liberal ears, but this time it's true. 

>   I don't know who is doing it, but I feel my leg being pulled.

    It is. But not by me, and not by Tom. The "culprit" this time is Rush 
himself.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: AIDS Question:
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:38:41 GMT
Keywords: AIDS


I just heard something which I would like to hear more about:

Jesse Helms (AGGH!! scream the liberals) quoted the Center for Disease
Control today as stating that the average male AIDS patient has had
more than FIVE HUNDRED sexual partners.  Can anyone refute or confirm 
this?  If in fact the CDC has come to this conclusion legitimately
I would be pretty startled.


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  


Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14033 alt.politics.clinton:21387 alt.rush-limbaugh:15312
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack B. Nimble)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAWS (Re: Read this if you are straight!)
Date: 27 Jan 93 19:00:56 GMT

In article <25JAN199317275203@zeus.tamu.edu>, on 25 Jan 1993 17:27 CST,
gadson@zeus.tamu.edu writes:

>
>In article <1993Jan25.002341.4612@midway.uchicago.edu>, sals@deirdre.uchicago.edu (red-head fancier) writes...
>
>|The point of anti-discrimination laws is to interfer with a person's
>|ability to choose who he wants to deal with based on his personal criteria
>|and to enforce what modern liberals say should be the "correct" decisions.
>
>        True.  So, do you think we'd be better off without
>anti-discrimination laws?
>
Individual rights should not be denied, abridged, or enhanced at the
expense of other people's rights. Certainly the government must not be
allowed to cater to prejudices even of a majority, and all forms of
governmental discrimination, such as banning homosexuals from military
service, restrictive immigration laws, and preferences to married
heterosexuals in the tax laws and in social security benefits should be
ended.

By the same token, however, anti-discrimination laws enforced by the
government in the private sector is also an infringement of individual
rights. It should not be within the province of government to make
decisions as to whom you must hire, rent, or serve, anymore than the
government should attempt to make decisions as to with whom you should
sleep.

    =Jack=
---

Jack B. Newsbaum             You have rights antecedent to all earthly
Library Information Systems  governments; rights that cannot be
University Research Library  repealed or restrained by human law.
ecl4jn2@mvs.oac.ucla.edu               - John Adams
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,uiuc.politics,alt.politics.elections
From: spectre@uiuc.edu (Ian)
Subject: Re: What's in a democracy?
Originator: chai@evergreen.cs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: spectre@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 05:01:31 GMT

tspila@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tim Spila {Romulan}) writes:
>I guess the point I am trying to make is:  Do we have a government that
>rules by what the population says it wants?  OR Do we have a government
>that rules by what "it" thinks is good for the population?  Also, which
>is truely better?

That is precisely the point I was making in my original uiuc.politics
post about democracy!

A benevolent dictatorship (read "Good king") who is competent is the
best form of government, but the problem with that is how to *get* a
benevolent, competent dictator, and how to *keep* one (since people
die...)

(Hey, that's it! What we need is a benevolent, competent, *immortal*
dictator...)
-- 
---                                      Xtrek is lovely, dark and deep.
God is gracious = Yahya = Yochanan =        But I have promises to keep,
Johannes = John = Jean = Jan = Ian     And megs to write before I sleep,
Internet: chai@cs.uiuc.edu             And megs to write before I sleep.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Stop The Tax Oppression of Hets!
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 07:10:15 GMT

mam@jcnpc.cmhnet.org (Mike A. McAngus) writes:
] Regardless of whether we file separate or joint returns, we have to 
] use one of  the "Married" columns and the tax rate in this column is 
] higher than the  "Single" column (see any IRS 1040 book for confirmation).


to put some numbers to this, Allow me to let you
in on the first year I was Married and filing tases.

It cost us $100 more to file a joint return,
than it would have cost us to file our seperate
returns as single persons, and 'lived together.'

It would have cost us $200 more to file two
seperate returns as married folks. 

I was an E-5, She an E-4.

So You can dig out the basic facts of the return
from the basic pay shedule....


ciao
drieux

ps: I say let Gay Folks Suffer from IRS FUN!!!!!



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: What does sacrifice mean to Bill?
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:16:04 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Keywords: Taxes, decreased spending, sacrafice
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <C16KCo.E45@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:

  
+>  So, what does sacrifice mean to our new president?  From
+>what Leon Panetta has said, it may mean higher taxes (even on
+>the middleclass).  And, you though you were getting a tax cut!

+>  I agree that sacrifices must be made ( preferibly, several
+>congressmen on an alter infront of the Capital ), but higher
+>taxes are the WRONG kind of sacrifice.  We must reduce what 
+>government does, and how much it spends.  The problem isn't
+>that the government doesn't raise enough money:  the problem
+>IS that it spends too much.

+>  However, I see TAX INCREASE written all over the President's
+>speech, and this will only put us into further economic troubles.

	Not only tax increase, but spending increases as well.  As last
I understood it, he intends to "grow" out of the deficit by spending
federal money.  In addition, his health care reform sounds like a plan
to spend more money and increase the federal role in paying for health
care.   And beyond that there is his "national service (or slavery
depending on your politics)" plan which is not going to be free either
to administer or to operate.  And on a smaller scale, there is public
financing for political campaigns.
	Now if he and his supporters want all these things, then at
the very least they have to show how they are going to pay for them
and reduce the deficit at the same time.  





Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14073 talk.politics.misc:70304
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:19:39 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago

In article <1993Jan28.033347.6511@psg.com> michaels@psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>On figuring the costs to the enviroment:
>
>Skin cancer rates have quadrupled in the last decade.  CFC's stay
>in the atmosphere for a ridiculously long time, centuries at
>the least.
>
>Now then:  add to the damage done to humans the damage done
>to animals and plants.  Just as you wouldn't buy milk from
>Chernobyl, you might get a little nervous about food from
>Argentina or Australia if the ozone hole gets a little bigger.

I wouldn't.  Yet.  I haven't seen any evidence that increased UV rays
hurts the food supply in a way that affects humans.

>Okay, that is a worst case scenario.  Lets compare it with
>a few other expenses set aside for the "worst case scenario".
>How much was spent on nuclear fallout shelters?
>How much do we spend on car/house/health etc.. insurance?
>
>We spend a lot of money on "worst case scenarios" and insurance
>companies still _make_ money.  Obviously we spend more moeny
>than we need to if _they_ are making a profit off our fears!

Uh, no, that's not how it works.  People are risk-adverse, not
risk-neutral.  Insurance companies, because they are so large,
can afford to be risk-neutral.  The "profit" is the difference
in willingness to hold risk.  That's why stocks have greater
returns than treasury bills -- stocks are riskier, so people
holding them get a higher return in exchange for the risk. 

>Think of it this way:  all the profit the insurance companies
>make is _absolute_ waste, whereas money spent to make
>the enviroment safe, and incentive and regualtions to insure
>competetion promotes new ways of making it safe are
>among the best _investments_ we can make.

I agree that we should look at environmental regulations in
these economic terms, but I don't see any reason to distinguish
them from other insurance costs.  Especially when many environmental
regulations can be justified on risk-neutral cost-benefit grounds,
without appeals to worst-case scenarios.  (Example: global warming
fears are bogus.)
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,uiuc.politics
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: How much does your congressman know about you?
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 20:25:47 GMT

In article <C16nDt.FJ0@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>     Your congressman will be glad to see that his efforts are working.
>Well, on you atleast.  The only reason that your representitive has such
>good files on you is so that they can win re-election ( the only thing
>most congressmen really care about ).  The records are used to target 
>specific mailing to you.  This mailings are the key tool in winning re-election,
>and they are done in a dubouis manner.  Whatever is important to you, as
>determined by your backgound, will be highlighted in the mailings you receive.
>
>   It is not a genuine concern for 'constituents' backgrounds and
> beliefs' which drives the file keeping and mailing, but a desire to stay
>in office for as long as they wish to be there.

And why do you think that challengers aren't able to purchase the exact
same data?  It's out there on the market.  I can verify that by the mailings
I've gotten from all sorts of folk who have nothing to do with Congress.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Foreign Policy
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:58:20 GMT

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

    [regarding a what-if scenario in which drug dogs find a stash in the
     White House.]

>Mr. Bill claims its catnip and blames Chelsea for putting it there.  
>Then he issues an executive order requiring all drug sniffer dogs to
>stop inhaling.

No, no, no!  He appoints a drug dog czar who will establish a committee
to review the the whole sniffing/inhaling issue and make recommendations at 
an open forum on MTV.  The resulting legislation will be used as the plot
line in an upcoming episode of Designing Women.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
From: cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: House Bill 4848 - Any News?
Date: 22 Jan 93 19:14:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


HB4848 has died because we have a new congress. The bill will have to b
have to be reintroduced in the new congress. Since this is the
third day of America Held Hostage, the new bill may already hav
been reintroduced especially since the biggest socialist in the
house (Gephardt) was the original number one sponsor.

-- 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14053 talk.abortion:58373
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 28 Jan 1993 08:23:06 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan28.014021.27250@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1k7cohINNqu3@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan27.173349.23024@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>Hmm...That's not what I'm concerned about, really. I'm concerned about
>>>the logical problems that this brings up.
>>What, that by definition everybody is then 
>>'less than a human?'  Is that what you mean to say?
>Yes, pretty much. May not be a very good point, but that's what it
>is.
>I don't quite see that you have addressed my point. Do you think
>you have? If so, perhaps you can explain more clearly.

Eric, you deleted the portion about the temporal nature of 'less than human'.
*if* women are less-than-human when they are pregnant and under the compul-
sion of an unjust government to bear children, they are not necessarily 
less-than-human before or after.  Ditto men conscripted into service.  There
remains a 'norm' of humanness for people; it is just seized from them 
when the government thinks it's a good idea.

Which is hardly like having 'rights' is it, if it were done randomly, but
we are talking about relatively systematic seizures aren't we?

If that didn't address your point, I think you'll have to explain more
clearly.

Adrienne Regard
>
>-Ekr
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
>Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
>                        Don't believe anything you hear.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: My fellow citizens?????????
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:00:45 GMT

larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:

>Those of us who were capable of hearing the speech and interpretting it
>for ourself (versus having it fed to us in little RL-bite sized chunks)
>heard Bill also use the phrase "My fellow Americans" a little later on.

   The thing is that he started his speech off with this phrase.  He didn't
say "fellow americans" until line 250.  To start out your speech this way 
is rather odd.      

   Too bad my schedule didn't work out so that I to would be 'capable' of
seeing the speech myself.  However, I have provided a copy of the speech for
everyone who was unable to get to a tv.



Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Deficit
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 06:33:38 GMT

Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
: In article <mlbruce.727596260@husc.harvard.edu> mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:
: >cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone) writes:
: >>Two comments:
: >
: >>1) I believe that the deficit *as a percentage of GNP* is not much
: >>larger than it was in earlier decades.
: >
: >As percent of GNP, from what I've read it stayed pretty level under
: >Reagan, but under Bush (esp. after the 1990 package) it skyrocketed as
: >percent of GNP. Still, as this is fact not opinion in question, we'd just
: >have to "look it up."
: 
: Deficit as percent of GNP doesn't tell us enough -- I wouldn't mind
: a high percentage, just so long as the economy is growing faster than
: the debt.  I'm going to use debt/GNP rather than deficit/GNP.
: 
: As percent of GNP, debt (rather than deficit) was steadily declining
: from Truman to Nixon, levelled under Nixon, stayed level until Reagan,
: and has been skyrocketing ever since.

Why not consider debt to income ratio?  Income being government revenues...
Why is a factor of up to 8x unacceptable?


: -- 
: ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
: standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
: the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13648 alt.rush-limbaugh:14999 alt.politics.clinton:21077
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: The "Liberal Media" Criticizes Clinton
Date: 22 Jan 93 21:28:32 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> In article <1993Jan19.073259.25121@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>,
> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) says:
> 
> >But you know the old Republican Duck Test;  if it looks like
> >a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a liberal.
> 
> Clinton walks looks like a pig, runs like a hippo and brays like an ass.
> So, what the hell is he?

Your twin brother?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc