HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Reasons for the Gulf War
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:37:10 GMT

From the Rush Limbaugh Summary of Monday, August 10, 1992
>
>Some people think that the Gulf War was fought to stop brutality
>and human rights violations, but the main reason the US went into
>the Gulf was to maintain the free flow of oil at market prices.
>Oil is the fuel of the engine of freedom, and the world knows
>this; this is why the UN signed on so quickly for Desert Shield
>and Storm.
>
>Oil is a justifiable reason since nearly half of the world's oil
>was in this region. Critics attacked Bush for fighting a war for
>oil, but Rush would love to see leftists heat their homes without
>it. Oil is certainly worth fighting for since freedom today
>cannot exist without it.
>
Rush is surprisingly rather clueless about the real cause of the Gulf
War, although he does recognize that the brutality involved in the
overrunning of Kuwait had nothing to do with it. There never was any
threat to the supply of oil coming from the Mideast, even if Saddam
Hussein would have managed to conquer Saudi Arabia as well. Indeed,
Saddam would have been quite pleased to sell the West all of the oil
that it wanted.

The real cause of the War was the use to which Saddam Hussein was
putting the vast sums of money he was receiving from the sale of oil --
to nuclear and chemical weapons buildup programs. It was these programs
which were perceived to be a dangerous threat to American interests and
to the interests of America's allies, namely Israel and Saudi Arabia.

In fact, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was a godsend, and a colossal
blunder on his part, for it provided the moral pretext for the U.S.,
under the aegis of the United Nations, to go in and destroy the
overwhelming majority of the weapons systems which Saddam had
meticulously build up over the previous 9 years.

Liberating Kuwait and protecting the Kurds and Shiites had nothing to do
with matters; destruction of Iraq's nuclear and weapons systems was what
it was all about. This further explains why the U.S. failed to go into
Baghdad and oust Saddam; such was not necessary to the primary
objective of weapons destruction, and the cost in American lives would
have been paid for with virtually little additional benefit.

As evidence for my thesis, I cite the oft reported incident, where the
American ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, failed to respond negatively
to hints by Saddam that he was contemplating an invasion of Kuwait and
was curious about the American attitude in this regard. If the U.S. had
really wanted to avert an invasion, Ms. Glaspie presumably would have
warned Saddam in the harshest terms not to proceed. The fact that it was
actually a hidden strategic objective of the U.S. for Saddam to invade
is sufficient to explain her otherwise puzzling acquiescence by silence.

    ====Jack====
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tamartin@spock.NMSU.Edu (MARTIN)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh Radio Stations -- so far
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 23:07:48 GMT

In article <30ymlwb@lynx.unm.edu> roberts@triton.unm.edu (Robert Smathers)  
writes:
> 
> I know someone had a radio station list going a while back,
> but I have compiled these from the first time I posted a
> message about it months ago.  If you don't see you radio station
> here (or errors are found) please let me know.  I'll try to
> post this once a month or when someone mentions wanting the list.
> 
> Robert
> 
> Robert Smathers  (roberts@triton.unm.edu)  Albuquerque, NM  USA
> 
> [This space for rent.  Email for rates.]    
> 
>  
>  Some of the radio stations Rush Limbaugh appears on:
>  
>  Albuquerque, NM         KOB     770 AM
>  Atlanta, GA             WGST    640 AM
>  Bloomington, IN         WGCL    1370 AM
>  Champaign, IL           WUFI    1460 AM
>  Chicago, IL             WLS     890 AM
>  Dallas, TX              KUII    1190 AM
>  Des Moines, IA          WHO     1040 AM
>  Detroit, MI             KXYT    1270 AM
>  Evansville, IN          WGAB    1180 AM
>  Gainesville, FL         WGGG    1230 AM
>  Indianapolis, IN        WNDE    1260 AM
>  Los Angeles, CA         KFI     640 AM
>  New Orleans, LA         WWL     870 AM
>  New York City, NY       WABC    770 AM
>  Portland, OR            KUIK    1360 AM        taped version 4-7p
>  Portland, OR            KXL     750 AM
>  Provo, UT               KFMY    960 AM
>  San Antonio, TX         KTSA    550 AM
>  San Diego, CA           XETRA   690 AM
>  San Francisco, CA       KNBR    680 AM
>  Sault Ste Marie, MI     WKNW    1400 AM
>  Seattle, WA             KVI     570 AM
>  Traverse City, MI       WTCH    580 AM
>  Youngstown, OH          WKBN    570 AM
>  
>  Please send additions/corrections to Robert Smathers at
>  (roberts@triton.unm.edu) for future lists.  Thanks.


Two more stations are:
Las Cruces, NM KOBE 1450AM
El Paso, TX  call letters unknown,  1380AM
Tabitha Martin, NMSU

>  
>  
>  
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 17:57:17 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Libertarians on Rush Limbaugh
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug13.135250.18326@ryn.mro4.dec.com> shapiro@trade.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
>
>the point is that so many people want to dictate to other people what is
>'right' and what is 'wrong' that they lose track of the picture as to what is
>working and what is not working.
>
>>Then the
>>grand master put on a commercial and then returned to give his
>>speal about how govt. needs to set standards and how if we 
>>legalized drugs we could cause the downfall of society. 
>
>Hmmm. Interesting. Especially since conservatives are the advocates of less
>government intervention in our lives.
>
>Governments don't set standards. They reflect the standards that society itself
>sets.
>
>Society provides us with the drug use situation, not the government. Apparently
>someone believes that the government can protect us from ourselves. Hmmm. That
>is strange since I recall someone once saying that people should expect less
>from the government and be glad that the government ignores them. 
>
>Sometimes I think that I am seeing a contradiction.
>

Amen.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
                   ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's broken promises (was Re: Clinton's broken promise)
Date: 22 Aug 92 20:40:13 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <1992Aug22.134641.24704@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>It's not like Bush has never broken any promices
>
>"Read my lips: No new taxes"
>"3,000,000 new jobs in the next 4 years"
>

A promise to sign an executive order requiring school schildren to say the
Pledge of Allegiance daily (from the '88 election)

A promise to sign another executive order allowing Chinese students to stay
in this country longer than normally allowed after Tiananmen Square (promised
after vetoing a congressional bill that would do the same thing)
-- 
The world is not analog. The world is digital,
with an incredible number of bits.
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist)                        <fnord>
E-Mail acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Aug 6, 1992
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:48:57 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 15019@seq.uncwil.edu, session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>>Great -- this means that by association people will stop mentioning Neil Bush's
>>name when trying to attack George, correct?
>I think there is a big difference between being held accountable for
>actions of your father and your father being held accountable for YOUR
>actions. But forget that. Neil Bush's involvement in the S&L scandal
>is nothing more than embarassing for G. Bush. G. Bush's deeper  involvement
>is much more damning for his position.

I think the entire episode with Neil Bush had more to do with embarrassing his
father rather than placing any blame on his father.  The problem is, most of
Bush's family and friends tend to do things that embarrass him.  It's sad, because
in his position, there is some responsibility that these people should be taking
in order to protect The Man.

---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4511 alt.rush-limbaugh:3636
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Tax Fairness
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: usa
Date: 17 Aug 92 12:10:33 CDT


In article <mykes.0c8f@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>, mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> 
> You act as if the rich aren't taxed.  They are - and heavily.  More heavily
> than the vast majority of americans.  Taking everything from the rich
> is communism.  Class warfare against the rich is communism.  Not projections.

From the Wall Street Journal (Tues, Aug 11, 1992):

A memo from Jack Kemp, Vin Weber, Newt Gingrich, Connie Mack, 
Trent Lott, Bob Kasten, and Malcolm Wallop.

     For people making just over $15,000 a year in 1992, the 
     effective marginal tax rate is 47%, compared to only
     23% in the mid-60s.  [The 47% figure reflects a 15% income
     tax rate, a 15% payroll tax, and the jolt of the phase out 
     of the earned income tax credit.]  The 1990 budget deal
     increased the top federal marginal rate to 34% from 28%
     for a family of four, a 21% increase.

Is is "fair" that the top marginal tax rate is 13% lower than
the marginal tax rate for those earning ~$15,000?

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Reasons for the Gulf War
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 14:27:26 GMT

mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt) writes:
>ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:
>>The real cause of the War was the use to which Saddam Hussein was
>>putting the vast sums of money he was receiving from the sale of oil --
>>to nuclear and chemical weapons buildup programs. It was these programs
>>which were perceived to be a dangerous threat to American interests and
>>to the interests of America's allies, namely Israel and Saudi Arabia.

>       My only real quibble here is saying that the nuclear and chemical
>threats were THE cause of the war.  Most wars have multiple causes, and I 
>think this one is no exception.  Clearly it was a valid reason for going to
>war, but not the only reason.

    Right. In order to convince yourself of this you need only ask the 
question "Would the US-led alliance have been possible if Kuwait had not 
been invaded?" I am forced to conclude that it would not. I can't imagine 
Saudi Arabia allowing us to land troops on their soil unless they felt 
that there was a threat to their own sovereignty, and that only happened 
when Hussein crossed the Kuwaiti border.

    Elimination of Hussein's "weapons of mass destruction" may have been a 
long-term objective which was served by going to war, but I don't think it 
deserves to be even second on the list of direct causes. IMHO the list 
of direct causes of the war should start off with:

    1) Saddam Hussein's arrogance/stupidity
and 2) maintenance of the free flow of oil at market prices

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: My religion is great, yours is Bullshit
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:37:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.155058.11105@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker) writes:
>
>Would Rush say the people who try to stop the operations of abortion
>clinics for religious reasons are in the wrong then?

You are really uncoordinated.  Claiming the right to do X (an act) on the
basis of religious freedom is quite different than what you just brought up.

As an example, we have been discussion whether man has the right to do
anything and claim it to be part of his religion.  That is, I claim that
as part of my religion I yell "fire" in theaters.  This is obviously 
dangerous and against the law.  Now, people protesting abortion, for whatever,
reason are not breaking the law but when their actions break a law they are
arrested.  However, the arrest has nothing to do with the principles behind 
those doing the protesting - they simply {loitered, vandalized, etc}
>
>Then again who cares what this fat, rude, bitter right-wing insecure load
>mouth has to say,  what do you think?

Hooray for liberal intellectualism!  Have you tried your hand in the group
alt.politics.correct?


Mike Best




Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Tax Fairness
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<LARRY.92Aug11110721@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> <mykes.0c8f@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 02:24:51 GMT

In article <mykes.0c8f@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
   In article <LARRY.92Aug11110721@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
   > I get it now: taxing the rich is equivalent to Communism. Projected away,
   > again.. (Sigh).
   >

   You act as if the rich aren't taxed.  They are - and heavily.  More heavily
   than the vast majority of americans.  Taking everything from the rich
   is communism.  Class warfare against the rich is communism.  Not projections.

Is that the way I act? How the hell would you know, Mikey? 

The projection I am talking about is the favorite tactic of folks like
yourself and Rush Limbaugh. Anyone in disagreement is projected to the
extreme opposite, no matter what they actually said. You responded with
another demonstration.

I never said anything about class warfare on the rich. I never said the
rich aren't taxed. I never said anything about taking everything from the
rich. I was talking about fairness in taxing, wherein the rich man, like
the middle class man, would pay some reasonable share of taxes.

Shall I make up some extreme viewpoints and attribute them to you in a
post here? Nah, life's too short to argue with the likes of mikes..

Have a nice life, feller.

   (..)
    ~~
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..
I saw God. He rides a motorcycle. He's coming back soon, and He's real pissed.
From: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:20:36 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Aug10.221933.3922@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
 
>open mind.  Calling yourself openminded is what I object to.  Conservatism
>by nature is neanderthal and close-minded, just look up the definition in the
>dictionary.

I'd sure love to see the dictionary with that definition.  Traditionally,
"conservative" had some connection with its root, "conserve".  Conservatives
wanted to conserve the old ways.  Of course, today the term means, in the
US political arena, one who distrusts government.  I fail to see the connection
to a branch of the human family tree which died out long ago.


+--------------------------------+-------------------------+
|Zeus, who delights in lightning |Think globally.          |
|                                |Act locally.             |
|zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu         |Eat my shorts totally.   |
+--------------------------------+-------------------------+
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 18 Aug 92 17:05:15 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug17.230209.6397@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:

->You see, your solution is arbitrary.  Arbitrary laws cause nothing but
->dissent.  Would you be happy if the line were arbitrarily drawn at six
->months?  8 months?  I venture to guess not.  So why should someone who
->does not believe _human_ life begins at conception be happy with your
->definition?  The only real solution is a solid definition of when life
->begins, that can be challenged based on science, not dogma.

 The main issue is giving arbitrary control to government. If We The People
through a vote decide that life begins at conception, then government will
have no arbitrary point of reference to make. We could also just assume
it is so just to insure that government dosent get in to the buissness of
choosing when life starts.
 Never sell your soul to Big Government !

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Bush's broken promises (was Re: Clinton's broken promise)
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 15:50:18 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.134641.24704@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:

>It's not like Bush has never broken any promices
>
>"Read my lips: No new taxes"
>"3,000,000 new jobs in the next 4 years"
>
>And how many others?

	how about "10% across the board tax cuts"?
-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
From: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (Porter, William M.)
Subject: Re: Bush's Marital Problems
Summary: Ain't much of a story here, is there?  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 07:00:00 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.195635.29245@lsil.com>, mitch@lsil.com writes...
 >I'm going to be unable to listen for the next few days but the Jennifer
 >Fitzgerald news broke yesterday, apparently in the New York Post?  Anyway,
 >I would be interested in hearing from those folks who are listening how
 >Limbaugh treats this one, as compared to "Slick Willie's Philandering."
 > 
 >Is he giving it equal time, or any time?

Is there any reason that he should? There is no story here and in fact even
these rumors are stale. Read the article in the recent SPY magazine, if you're
desperate, but it contains nothing that deserves the name "information", nor
does this story in the Post. So paltry is this story that Ted Koppel devoted
tonight's Nightline show to once again engaging in Kierkegaardian
soul-searching about the ethics of news reporting. As the Albert Brooks
character says (sarcastically) in "Broadcast News": "Oh, yes, let's NEVER
forget that WE are the real story here."

Barbara Bush was asked, in an interview excerpted on Nightline, whether it was
right for reporters to go after this story. Her answer was clearheaded. She
said that she wasn't sure whether it was right or not, but she was sure that
any reporter who brings up an allegation such as this better be sure that there
really >is< something to it. In this case there is not.

Ross Perot apparently believed that it would be foolish to trust a man who
couldn't be trusted by his own wife. Another piece of Perot nonsense.
Personally I couldn't care less who Clinton has slept with either. There is no
shortage of reasons not to vote for Gov. Clinton. If I thought he was a great
leader with the right ideas, I'd disregard the foibles of his private life in
an instant and vote for him.

But this story about Bush is really "despicable" (Mrs. Bush's word). The CNN
reporter (a woman) who asked Bush about the "tryst" during his public news
conference on the Middle East should be relegated to a job as a copy-editor on
the Sally Jesse Raphael show. And Mr. Koppell and his colleagues should stop
agonizing so much about their profession in public and start behaving like real
reporters, gathering facts.   

William Porter  * * * Classical Languages: University of Houston
Internet: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu /or/ CompuServe: 75430,1351
From: root@engr3.umbc.edu (Super-User)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: George & Jennifer
Date: 16 Aug 92 15:10:09 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus

In article <mykes.0cag@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>> Who cares? Not me. I don't care if Bush messed with Jennifer Fitzgerald
>> either. I don't think it has a hell of a lot to do with the job of the
>> presidency.
>>
>
>Mr. Evil, you do not understand what marriage is all about.  It is about
>commitment and trust.  And of family values.  If a man violates these values
>with the ONE person closest to him, he is likely to have those same kinds
>of lack of values as president.  ALL politicians say "Trust Me"...  Trust.
>Trust.

	Am I to understand that you think that Bush is an unreliable president
because he was screwing Jeniffer Fitzgerald? Or are you willing to ignore (or
deny) the incidents for the sake of the party?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Great Communicators (was Re: Buchanan's speech)
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Aug18.182421.22114@natinst.com>
	<1992Aug18.184507.13355@midway.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 05:30:08 GMT

Yeh, Buchanan's a real peach. Other than the kakistocratic solutions he
advocates, I have no problems with Pat.

But, fact is, Ronald Reagan is still the most charismatic Republican in 
sight. His speech certainly reminded me what a great communicator he was
as President. Yeh, I know he probably didn't write it, but he certainly
did present it well. At 81, he still does better than Bush *ever* has.

If you want to know the truth, this ability to communicate is more
important to lots of folks than many other presidential abilities. One of
the reasons Clinton is likely to be our next president..

Yours, still patiently waiting to be convinced to vote Republican...

  (..)
   ~~
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..
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh