HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Date: 1 Sep 92 18:09:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Sep1.120949.7529@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>I am not going to argue the merits of either of these people's "war
>record", but I would like to discuss this double standard the Democrats
>have on these two.  It was OK for Clinton to do anything legal to 
>avoid being drafted, yet Quayle is not afforded that right?

Well, I don't know if having family connections applying pressure is
all that legal.  But suppose it is - here's how I look at it - would I,
or most other young men without the benefit of wealth and pull be able
to pull off what he did?  If not, is that right?

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why's George in trouble?  (was The George Bush Fan Club?)
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:22:22 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

> In article 19768@cs.rose-hulman.edu, pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu  
(D) writes:
>Question for all the Clinton folk out there...what happened?  Why, 
>during the primaries, did it look like George was going to run away 
>with this whole thing and leave Clinton (and even Perot, at the 
>beginning) eating his dust, and now, just six months later, Bush's 
>campaign is in disarray and he can't catch Clinton no matter what he 
>does?  What do the American people know now that they didn't know six 
>months ago?

	Before the democratic convention, the scores were 36, 30, 27 for
bush, perot and Clinton respectively. noe they are about 40, 50 for bush
and clinton respectively.

	It's not really that complicated. The media was stepping on clinton
really hard before the democratic convention, and the convention gave the
dems a chance to show that clinton wasn't such a demon. add 10 points for
Bill.

	Then Perot dropped out. Theres no reason to think that perot 
supporters would split evenly between bush & clinton, a poll of perot
people in CA showed that 4 out of 5 fell into clintons camp. add 10 points
for bill.

	Clintons big swing gets him a publicity boost, and for awile, the
whole country goes glassy eyed. add 5 point for bill.

	So, right in between the conventions, it's looking 35, 60 for
bush and clinton, respectively. by the time the GOP convention rolls
around, some of the glaze has worn off, and its back to 50, 40 by
labor day. I don't think it'll change much from here on in: the economy
is only going to get worsem or at best stay better, bush probably couldn't
get away with starting a war, everybodies skeletons are out of the closet,
and none of the candidates are good enough speakers to score big in the
debates. 

	The GOP has more or less conceeded california, but they've probably
got florida. the Dems have NY, and texas is anybodies game. It's going to
be a close race.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re:  Clinton, draft dodger.  YUP!
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:57:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.011252.28043@cs.rose-hulman.edu>, pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D) writes:

|> 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.

	Then write to dan quayle, and tell him to talk about something else.
He's one of hte ones who keeps bringing it up as an issue.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why's George in trouble?  (because his fans lie?)
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:43:04 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <1992Sep3.172711.6459@cs.rose-hulman.edu>, pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D) writes:

|> Since when is circa 7% daunting?  I personally think that's pretty dad-gum  
|> good.  Now, granted, at this time into Reagan's first term he'd worked  
|> unemployment down from around 11% to around 7%, so that's a wee bit more  
|> impressive than from 5% to 7%.  Still, it could be a heck of a lot worse.

	Another Bush fan who makes up numbers to go with his ideology.

	I just posted unemployment stats for the last 20 years, and they've
been reposted several times. the problem with your statements is (a)
unemployment is not 7%, its 7.8%, and (b) unemployement was never at 11%,
under any president in the last 50 years, and (c) unemployement rose
substancially (from 7 to 9.5%) in reagans first term.

	It would help if you would at least *try* to tell the truth.

|> At least Clinton's the failed leader of a small Southern state; George is  
|> the failing leader of the free world.  Still, here's my big point...

	Clinton is a 5 term popular governer. how does that equate to
"failed leader". I admint, it's got a nice ring to it, but it doesn't
relate to anything that I'm aware of. But you haven't been too interested
in facts anyway, at least so far.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5000 alt.rush-limbaugh:4185
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton (was: Re: Buchanan's speech)
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:31:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <j==na6a.mvp@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug23.004337.19230@leela.cs.orst.edu> chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
>>Phyllis Schafly's children, I understand, live with relatives in
>>another state, so she can pursue her career as a conservative advocate
>>of "family values."
>
>I believe Phyllis Schafly's children are grown, with children
>of their own.
>
>I used to like Mz Shafly, but her attacks on Dr. Koop have caused me
>to lose all respect for her.
>
I think she is fairly dweeby, but be reminded that Michael Fumento (The Myth
of Heterosexual AIDS) criticized Dr. Koop as well, and this time I think
Fumento was right.

T. Kalivoda
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Sep1.123427.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
	<1992Sep1.182347.18026@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
	<1992Sep3.133330.24102@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Distribution: world, usa, na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:11:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.133330.24102@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:

   In article <1992Sep1.182347.18026@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
   >>      What about if I individually decide to post the Ten Commandments
   >> in my classroom?
   >
   >>     Whatever happened to academic freedom?  If another educator decides
   >>NOT to post the Ten Commandments and not teach creationism, then more
   >>power to her/him.  Just let me present many points of view.
   >> 
   >>     -- C. Perttunen
   >
   >I'll support your right to put up the ten commandments,  if you'll 
   >support my right to put up Satanic religious artifacts,  and then
   >support my right to use subtle peer and teacher pressure to convert
   >kiddies...  And let's not forget the ever popular celebration
   >of Lupercalia, and the deflowering of Virgins at the alter of Priapus.
   >
   >
   >"Just let me present many points of view."
   >
   >How often?  Once?  Twice?  Weekly,  daily?  How often am I supposed to let
   >you try to shove Christianity down the throats of my kids?

   No one said shove exept you.  You should have all the freedom in the world
   to tell the kiddies about your Satanic artifacts, but the "community" locale
   will see to it that your classroom is empty pretty fast.  On the other hand,
   I don't think the community minds a teacher  explaining his or her faith to
   the kids, as long as there is no attempt to convert. 

Yeh, buddy! There's the solution to all our woes in this country! The Ten
Commandments taught in every classroom. Maybe it will instill some of
those wonderful Family Values we can't seem to generate by responsible 
parenting at home.

It's interesting to hear so-called conservatives talk about getting the
government out of every phase of our lives, and on the next sentence, talk
about the need to teach "Christian" values in the classroom, at public
expense. 

What's wrong with us keeping our religion at home? Or just sending our
kiddies directly to religious schools? (The State wouldn't PAY for it, eh?) 

   (..)
    ~~
L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Because the plot demands: an EVIL man!



Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli)
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 8/31/92
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
Distribution: world,usa,na
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 18:53:21 GMT

In article <1884@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.182141.6310@natinst.com> davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli) writes:
>->This seemed pretty clear to me.  The gambling industry in question (horse
>->racing I think) was given a small tax break but allowed to operate more days
>->during the year.  Thus although the tax rate dropped revenue increased
>->because more money was gambled and subject to tax over the course of the
>->extended operating season.
>
> So how do you compare the government allowing an industry to operate more
>often with a capital gains tax cut. I thought the standard democratic line
>was that a capital gains tax cut only helped the rich.

That's not the point.  The point was that lowering the tax rate but taking
in more revenue was being called a tax increase.  I think most people
understand tax increase to mean an increase in their tax rates or closing
loopholes to effectively increase their tax rate, not that they end up
paying a larger dollar amount in taxes on a larger amount of dollars in
earnings.  Again, Will was trying to make the point that if you're going to
call collecting more in taxes from somebody's increase in taxable revenue a
tax increase, then you should call the increase in taxes collected from the
tax cuts during the Reagan years a tax increase as well.
 
> The reason the governments revenues increased in the horse racing buissness
>is due to having the buissness operate more often. Not just due to giving
>them a tax break. If Arkansas had dropped the tax by 1 percent and not 
>had the buissness operate more often, revenues would still have increased.
>Not from the track buissness but due to the owners (stockholders) of the
>buissness having more capital to spend elsewhere in the economy.

Well, I'm not so sure about that.  Here in Texas, the track owners lobbied
to get their tax rate cut so they could actually earn enough profit to
stay in business.  That way at least the revenue keeps coming in.  I'll
grant you that if the owners make enough money, then they'll buy more
stuff and invest more in their tracks or whatever, which will help bring
in taxes, too.

> The fact that the buissness runs longer is what makes it a targeted tax
>increase. Again a statists decided that revenues from gambling was more
>important than revenues from a free market.

So is you're problem with all of this that you think gambling is wrong?
Or that state-regulated gambling is wrong?  If so, why don't you just
say this.

-- Russell Davoli
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D)
Subject: Re: Why's George in trouble?  (they just can't get their facts straight)
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 03:06:09 GMT


alex writes
> In article <1992Sep3.172711.6459@cs.rose-hulman.edu>,  
pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D) writes:
 
> 	Another Bush fan who makes up numbers to go with his ideology.
> 
I wasn't making them up, I was trying to pull them from memory.   
Obviously, from what you stated, my memory isn't all that hot.

> 	I just posted unemployment stats for the last 20 years, and 
> they've been reposted several times. the problem with your statements is 
> (a) unemployment is not 7%, its 7.8%, and (b) unemployement was never at 
> 11%, under any president in the last 50 years, and (c) unemployement 
> rose substancially (from 7 to 9.5%) in reagans first term.
> 
The one problem I had with your numbers, Alex, is that you gave yearly  
figures.  Useful, perhaps, but they just don't show the trends that month-  
to-month numbers do.  If you would look at monthly figures, I think  
unemployment hit 11% somewhere right around the middle of Ronnie's first  
term.

My point remains:  Unemployment remains pretty decent.  Even going by  
Alex's numbers, we've still been at 9.5% in the last decade.  What's the  
lowest we've been?  A bit higher than 5%?  We're not in the best shape  
right now, but we've still been worse.

Mitch made the point that people out of work don't tend to vote for  
incumbents.  Right now, that constitutes about eight percent of the  
electorate.  That's 92% remaining.  Things could be A LOT worse.

> 	It would help if you would at least *try* to tell the truth.
> 
I did...I just failed so badly that you couldn't tell that's what I was  
trying to do.  8-)

> |> At least Clinton's the failed leader of a small Southern state; 
> |> George is the failing leader of the free world...
> 
> 	Clinton is a 5 term popular governer. how does that equate to
> "failed leader". I admint, it's got a nice ring to it, but it doesn't
> relate to anything that I'm aware of. 

Yeah it does...it means that he's doing one heck of a lot better than  
George is right now.  Let me remind you of one thing...a Bush fan I ain't.   
I'd love to be voting Kemp in two months.  I'm still not convinced I'm not  
going to write him in (I would if I thought it would do any good).  But  
he's one heck of a lot better than the alternative, and I don't think the  
press is being up front with the American people concerning exactly what  
the alternative stands for.

(more) clueless (than usual) chuck
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Woody Allen, evil Democrat example
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:49:54 GMT
Distribution: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <LARRY.92Aug26122656@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>, larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
|> 
|> My, what a broad brush Rush paints with! 
|> 
|> Every Rush diatribe like this reminds me again what a jerk this 
|> sermocinatious bellwether of the New Right really is. You can keep him.
|> 

So why are you listening?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 00:11:20 GMT
Distribution: world, usa, na
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <1992Sep1.182347.18026@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, 
  tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>
>>      What about if I individually decide to post the Ten Commandments
>> in my classroom? 
>>     -- C. Perttunen
>
> How often am I supposed to let
> you try to shove Christianity down the throats of my kids?

First of all, I'm sure many of our Jewish friends would not think I'm shoving
Christianity down their throats with the Ten Commandments...
Secondly, all I considered was POSTING the Ten Commandments; I would
hardly consider that SHOVING Christianity down the throats of your kids.

You brought up some good points about Satanic artifacts.  Let's say the
administration of a public school tells me that they do not think it
is in the best interest of the students for me to merely POST the Ten
Commandments.  I would have no choice (unless I quit) but to comply.
Similarly, if an administration of a public school tells you to remove
your satanic altar from the classroom, you would have to comply.

The big problem I have is the UNCONSTITUTIONALITY for me to post
the Ten Commandments.  (Luckily for you, it is not unconstitutional
to bring a satanic altar into the classroom.)  Like I discussed in
my previous posting, I do not see the Ten Commandments as being
unconstitutional (it is one of the bases from which law in this
country was formed).

I believe the local administrators are competent enough to be able
to suggest and enforce modifications to curricula that is in the best
interest of the students...then we can let Washington D.C. spend 
its efforts in things like hurricane disaster relief. :)

-- C. Perttunen



Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Capital gains idiocy (was Clinton's broken promise)
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Aug25.141214.3203@dbsun.uucp>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 23:41:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.141214.3203@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
      [ deleted: comments of and responses to a Republican-in-training 
        who didn't yet know about rolling a home sale over to avoid 
        capital gains taxes.. ]

   >I think liberalism in this country would cease to exist if liberals would  
   >get the heck out of their universities and think-tanks and find out what  
   >the problems of the lower and middle classes REALLY are.  That's what  
   >eventually cured me...

   Sorry, I don't think the conservatives in their big houses and country
   clubs know what "problems of the lower and middle classes REALLY are"
   either.  I don't agree with paternalistic liberalism, but I also don't
   agree with laissez-faire conservatism either.  There must be a happy
   medium.

You won't find any happy mediums allowed in this newsgroup. Just rabid 
Dittobrains and the Evil Liberals who foolishly disagree with them and 
their sainted Rush.

Heck, I've been chastized for worrying about the national debt because 
I'm not a card carrying Rushpublican. I'm defined as supporting militant
feminism and environazis because I believe what I read in Science about
the ozone hole. I'm projected to be a Marxist because I didn't believe in 
in the absolute principle of non-taxability of large corporations and 
trickle-down economics. And I'm confirmed as an anti-patriot and 
condoner of abuses of food stamps and welfare because of my remark 
about one stealth bomber paying for all the welfare mothers to date. Worst
of all, I'm a registered Democrat, the heck in a university think-tank.

So, Senior Hulsey, what sort of liberal extremist(s) would you like to be
cast as?

  (..)
   ~~
L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
O Fair New Mexico! Landfill of Enchantment. And home of THEM (Atomic Ants)..




Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Organization: Texas Instruments
Distribution: world, usa, na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:22:14 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.182347.18026@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
|> >      What about if I individually decide to post the Ten Commandments
|> > in my classroom?
|> 
|> >     Whatever happened to academic freedom?  If another educator decides
|> >NOT to post the Ten Commandments and not teach creationism, then more
|> >power to her/him.  Just let me present many points of view.
|> > 
|> >     -- C. Perttunen
|> 
|> I'll support your right to put up the ten commandments,  if you'll 
|> support my right to put up Satanic religious artifacts,  and then
|> support my right to use subtle peer and teacher pressure to convert
|> kiddies...  And let's not forget the ever popular celebration
|> of Lupercalia, and the deflowering of Virgins at the alter of Priapus.

It doesn't really sound that much different from the secular humanism that has
been preached in public schools for over two decades now.  The only difference
is that it's not limited to February 15, just pass out the condoms and
abortion appointments as needed year round.  Maybe we should move that Guns
and Roses poster from the music appreciation class to say the cafeteria so
that all of our kids can discuss the Satanic salutes, Roman crosses, and other
Satanic symbols in a more suitable environment.

|> 
|> 
|> "Just let me present many points of view."

Whether you really believe them or not, they are already being preached for
you right now, day by day, minute by minute.  Remember, secular humanism has
been determined by the US Supreme Court to be a religion, yet it is preached
daily in schools all across this country and has been for over two decades.


|> 
|> How often?  Once?  Twice?  Weekly,  daily?  How often am I supposed to let
|> you try to shove Christianity down the throats of my kids?

I see what you are saying, "the only moral thing to teach is amorality". 
Sounds "logical" doesn't it?

***  The opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my  ***
***  employeer.                                                            ***
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh