HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: You probably missed this
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:36:24 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

I found this post unamusing, inane, and without value.

You should leave this sort of mean-spirited "humor" to an expert: Rush 
Limbaugh.

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)..
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8274 alt.rush-limbaugh:9351
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. facts
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:52:37 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <BxC827.J9r@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
-> text deleted ...
->Neither Bush NOR Clinton will be responsible for the improvement, but
->watch for Dan Rather to point out about a zillion times that as soon as
->Clinton was elected, the economy started to take off. (It won't take off;
->it'll continue to stagger up 'till Slick Willie and George Mitchell pass
->the first tax hike, at which time it'll plummet, and
->Clinton/Mitchell/Foley will pronounce it a "delayed reaction to the
->fiscal irresponsibility of Reagan/Bush". ) 

 How is the socialist theory of raising taxes and removing money from the
the economy and reinvesting less than you took out, going to promote economic
growth ? It will only make the segments of the economy which Clinton decides
to invest in, grow. The rest of the economy will suffer. I wonder which seg-
ments of the economy is dominated by the people who elected Clinton ? Time
to phone your broker, or is this insider trading :> .

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 14:29:31 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC


|> And I haven't seen or heard any Clinton supporters saying that he has
|> a popular mandate, but there certainly alot of his detractors claiming
|> that he thinks he has one or that democrats think he has one.
|> I'm afraid it's hard to argue without an opposition, but some persons
|> on this net are doing a good job of it.
|>  

Check out the Boston Globe, November 4, 1992.  Yes, Virginia, there have
been many claims of a mandate.

And I will reiterate here, that I think it is a pointless argument.  The
president needs to be able to claim some kind of a "mandate from the 
people" only when dealing with an obstructionist congress, and it's really
hard to picture the Congress not giving a democratic president whatever
he wants.
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:01:36 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: SDFHJKSDAHJ

I'm sure Rush is glad to have such fans...
From: rjwade@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Robert J. Wade)
Subject: Re: 10th Amendment (Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:57:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.143545.23836@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <1dmb3tINNssu@agate.berkeley.edu>, curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>> In article <BD.92Nov9101030@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>> 
>> |>|I'm a liberal - which one of the amendments is it I'm
>> |>|supposed to not be in support of?
>> |>
>> |>Uh, the Tenth?
>> |>
>> |>Guess the water supply in Hanover is kind of low in clueides.
>> |
>> |The Tenth?  The one that says "The powers not delegated to the 
>> |United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
>> |States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people".
>> |
>> |I get my water from a well, and since it *is* apparently low on clueides,
>> |could you explain in more detail what you're talking about?
>> 
>> Okay, here's the gist of it:
>> 
>> See, what it says is that the powers which aren't delegated to
>> the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to
>> the States, are reserved to the States, right, or to the people.
>> 
>> Hmm.  I dunno.
>> 
>> Is there a way to say "prohibited" in words of one syllable?
>
>Does anyone know where the Constitution gives the Federal goverment
>the power to wage a "War on Drugs"?

hmm...is it that one that that says people are guilty until proven innocent
and can have their privacy invaded by the federal government for any reason
they dream up....oh..that's right...we don't have that in *our* constitution..
that stuff is from socialist nazi germany and communicst ussr(formerly).
my mistake....
>
>Just wondering...
>
>Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: 00066033@ysub.ysu.edu
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:26:54 GMT

In article <BxK1Iv.7n0@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
 
>
>lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage) writes:
>
>>In article <92315.011135MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>|> People, it's President Clinton now. Gag or applaud as is your wont, but
>>|> whining about the percentages won't change one single thing.
>
>>Actually, it's President-Elect Clinton now.  Won't be President Clinton
>>until January 21, 1993.
>
>Actually, it's Willie McPresident-Elect Clinton.
>
Really? I thought it was 'Master-of-the-Universe-elect DJ Willie Will'
>
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Dan Quayle My Hero !!!!!!!!!!
Date: 12 Nov 92 06:40:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.140848.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, enor@woods.ulowell.edu says:

>Thank you Mr. Vice President for being a beacon of truth in the ranks of the

Say... isn't that, "a beakon of truth," as it was in the official Quayle
                         ^
family Christmas card of a couple of years ago...?

(Sorry.  I agree with all you said; but I couldn't resist... :-)

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: enor@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: CLINTON PLAGURIZES REPUBLICAN PLATFORM IN ACCEPTANCE SPEECH
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:34:02 GMT

CLINTON PLAGURIZES REPUBLICAN PLATFORM IN ACCEPTAANCE SPEECH

Am I the only one who caught the Clinton plagurization of the 
Republican Platform Tuesday night.  Among his acceptance speech
to the nation Clinton said "We need to give people a hand up not
a hand out".  My My My thats what we Republican's have been 
saying for 12 years.  

I hope Jack Kemp was listening because that's a good place to start
the '96 campaign.  His slogan could be.  Why elect a plagurizer of me
why not elect me.  


*********************************************************************
*                                          * Just remember like Dr. *
* EEEEE  N    N   OOOO    RRRR            * Seuss said " I meant    *
* E      N N  N   O  O    R   R          * what I said and I said   *
* EEE    N  N N   O  O    RRRR          * what I meant an Elephant  *
* E      N   NN   O  O    R  R         * is faithful one-hundred    *
* EEEEE  N    N   OOOO    R   R       * percent."  The elephant     *
*                                    * truth justice and the        *
*                                   * REPUBLICAN  WAY               *
*********************************************************************
The views expressed here are my own and in no way reflect those of 
the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, or any of it's affiliated
institutions.   But they should.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: Rush grasps at straws
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 10:09:59 GMT

In article <122460067@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>[munch]
>> Rush is trying to say that Clinton was more attractive to the conservatives
>> than Bush?   Stretching...   really stretching.
>
>No, I think he is suggesting that moderates really lean towards conservatism.
>They certainly did during the Reagan years.  This year they leaned
>a bit towards liberalism for WHATEVER reason.
 
  No, moderates lean toward moderation (that's obvious, no?)  They leaned
  towards conservatism during the Reagan years because they liked Reagan.
  And for a while they liked what he did to their wallets (tax cuts, low
  inflation, good economy, lower gas prices, all the things that Carter
  screwed up, mostly through no real fault of his own, but hey, it was
  his watch, right?)  This year, they leaned towards liberalism because
  they DON'T REALLY like Bush, and Bush was starting to look dangerously
  right wing.  Through 1988 glasses, compared to the Little Duke, Bush
  conservatism looked OK.  Through 1992 glasses, compared to Big Bill,
  Bush conservatism looked dangerous.  And they didn't like what he
  did to their wallets :-)  Most people don't want abortion on demand
  but they don't want to kill Roe v Wade either.  Most people like
  Murphy Brown and Danny Boy made Bush look like an idiot (didn't 
  Quayle remind anyone of Spiro Agnew when he took on the Murph? does
  anyone REMEMBER Spiro Agnew?:-)  

  The fact is the country is pretty moderate, has always been so and
  always will be.  They vote their wallet/pocketbook and their 
  conscience, for the most part.  And Bush just didn't cut it.

>> Right now he is claiming
>> 
>> "We have a guy who drove a VW bus in the '60s as a president elect."

  Great, better that he drove a VW bus than a 'vette (most of those
  guys had mush for brains :-)
>> 
>> "Conservativism triumphed in California!  It triumphed. It triumphed."
>> 
>> Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer elected to the Senate is a triumph for
>> conservativism?  Yah, sure.
>> 
>> God, Rush is funny today.
>
>Yeah, he really is putting a hard spin on things. 

  Its normal.  The three phases (as taught in Psych 101 at most
  colleges):  Denial, Anger, Acceptance.

  Look for Rush to start flaming off at everyone within a few days.
  By the end of the week, Rush will probably have Bush down as the
  devil of the Republican party.  

  Jon Rosen
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: enor@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: <None>
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:44:06 GMT

A changing of the guard.

On Veterans day Rush Limbaugh illusrated the changing of thhe guard so to
speak from the Veterans of Worl War II to their children.  He said that even
though he is a member of the baby boom generation that he is not proud of them.  

Myself being a chiild of the baby boomers cannot wait until the cross is passed
over to my generation.  I believe that my generation after seeing how much
Clinton, who is now part of the Baby Boomers and their self appoiinted leader,
will screw things up so bad will fall back to ideals that once mai this country
great.
\
Service: Both Military and Volunteer,PROUDLY when CALLED!!!
Family: As the chilren of so many broken marriages we will look more closely 
	at whom we choose to marry.  And will probably stay more faithful.

Robert R. Eno
The views expresse are my own an do not necessarily reflect those of the
beauracracy at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 21:39:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.171300.11448@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
   Man, I can't believe the complaints I'm getting with my sig - isn't it 
   amazing that for 12 years, Democrats have been ridiculing Reagan, Bush,
   Quayle, and anything conservative, yet when they are finally victorious
   they allow no dissent whatever? I was going to change this sig after
   about a week or so, but since it's irritating so many whiny liberals, 
   I'm going to keep it around  for a while. 
   -- 
   John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
			      | Support the coup!
   CompuServe: 74076,1250     |
   Internet: jrs@netcom.com   |

I like it just fine, John. I say you should keep it as long as you want.

   (..)
    ~~
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..
Lick Bush in '92!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: List of Bush's promises (Re: List of Clinton's (to be) broken promises.)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 12 Nov 92 09:20:29 CST


In article <1992Nov10.140915.12840@mic.ucla.edu>, rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu () writes:
> Can someone post the list of Clinton's campaign
> promises from the Limbaugh Letter?

How 'bout a list of Bush's broken promises as a standard of comparison?

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8118 alt.politics.clinton:16294 alt.politics.bush:13449 alt.rush-limbaugh:9199
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 7 Nov 1992 06:12:20 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov4.185859.8214@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>....example of how one can can hold a poll to get any result one wants
>... and one can draw 'conclusions' deleted cuz I can't believe how
>... many people need a clue phone.
>But, by your own standards, since over 50% of the voters did not vote 
>for Clinton, but he won, does that mean that those who voted for Bill 
>are out of touch with the rest of this fine land?

1) My own standards?  Please explain how YOU created this statement?
2) Looking at raw numbers....  80% - 40%  = 40% diff
                               50% - 40%  = 10% diff

Assumed:  80% is rush poll of votes for bush
          40% in first one is bush win
          50% is 1/2 population
          40% in second equ. is clinton win.

Last time I checked, 40% diff is greater than 10%.  the 10% is the
normal populations diff between ideal and result.  The 40% represents
the differance between Rush audience and reality.
(please note I used nice big round numbers cuz they work as well as
the real ones for my point.)
As you Ted wish to debate this 'Out of touch' thing, the above 
stated %ages show Rush listeners are out of touch with the mainstream.


A


-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:37:31 GMT

Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.190713.18501@henson.cc.wwu.edu> brian h. harper,
>n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu writes:
>>Yes, a mandate to not have Bush, but using this logic, the majority (57%)
>>voted against Clinton. That, too is a mandate. Course it won't matter
>>because he won. Does it feel good to have a Pres that the majority of
>voters
>>don't want? 

>You do realise how counterproductive, pointless, and divisive
>this discussion is, don't you? We have work to do dammit!
>Help us get it done.

>Norman

Freedom of speech is NEVER counterproductive, pointless, or divisive!
And I disagree that we "have work to do ....!". I for one want the Gov.
out of my life as much as possible, and I don't see that with Clinton.
-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Did Rush Lie on Abortion? (was Re: Summary Fri 10/23/92)
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:41:34 GMT
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh

archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully) writes:
>In <1992Nov04.231020.17209@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>*madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>*>As an aside, Allah is simply the Arabic word for God and it is the same
>*>God as in the christian or judaic accounts.
>*
>*Wrong.  One god has a kid, the other two gods don't.
>*
>*Sounds like at least two different gods to me.
>*

>Odd, all three religions share a large number of holy books, and Jesus
>is regarded as a prophet by Islam.  Perhaps you should do some comparitive
>religion reading.

I know Jesus is considered a prophet by Islam; did you know that he is
considered an ordinary human being by Islam, and that saying Allah has
children is heresy?  The god of the Muslims has no children; the god of
the Christians has a son.  Good luck asserting these gods are one and the
same.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: November 3, the day Rush dies!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 03:19:05 GMT

In article <mjenkins.720812598@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>In <1992Nov3.113251.1@opie.bgsu.edu> wd208cs@opie.bgsu.edu writes:
>
>
>>Well, it's election day.  We are going to see a great change in this country,
>>with Clinton landsliding and all.  My question is:  What will happen to Rush
>>once we have a Democratic President???  Will he spend his time bashing the
>>leader of our country???  Doesn't seem to me that there's much future in that.
>
>Right, like all you people have spent the last four years bashing
>Bush and Quayle.
>
>I think there's gonna be a great future in following Slick Willie's
>trials and tribulations as he tries to balance the budget without
>raising taxes on the middle class. Rush has a great future ahead of him.
>
Oh, yes.  Rush will likely continue to shoot skyward in popularity.  He will
be glad to rub the collective noses in the dirt as it occurs.  Only problem:
we'uns who didn't vote Slick will have to smell the same stink as you who did!

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush grasps at straws
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa, world
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:40:26 GMT

(about a half-dozen irrelevant cross-post groups deleted)

archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully) writes:
>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>*God, Rush is funny today.

>I thought the "Taxula" bit was a real side-splitter.

    Agreed. Whoever hit on the idea of calling Taxula's henchman "Algor" is 
a comedic genius.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8361 alt.rush-limbaugh:9434 alt.politics.bush:13743 talk.bizarre:37656 alt.politics.clinton:16824 misc.legal:19799
From: curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Liberals want to remove Admendment #10? (was Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 11 Nov 1992 16:53:03 GMT
Organization: CS Dept. Snakepit - Do Not Feed.
NNTP-Posting-Host: mamba.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov11.140406.2361@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>
>Conversely, if my state takes away my whiffle balls, I'd like the U.S. to be
>there to stick up for me.

And I, sir, would like a big fast Bugatti and hot apple pie a la mode
every morning with my coffee.

But I'm afraid that the Constitution does not guarantee either
of us our desires.  

Federal limitations on the states were a sort of jury-rigged
half-hack put in after the Civil War and are as much de facto
(a Latin term meaning "Constitution my ass!  Are you really
going to get uppity after what we did to Atlanta?") as anything
else.

So if Texas wants to take away your wiffle balls, it can and it
will.  If Uncle Sam wants to take away your wiffle balls, it
can't, because nothing in the Constitution gives it the power
to confiscate wiffle balls without due process of law, but it
will anyway.

This is the definitive legal analysis of the Wiffle Ball
Question.  Further inquiries may be directed to our Director
of Communications, Dr. Bloor, who will return responses
at an appropriate time and with an appropriate level of force.

>>>Why do I think whiffle ball juggling is a right?  Because of my right
>>>to privacy (which has been pointed out was been brought before the
>>>S.C.  before Roe v. Wade) - I have the right to be left to myself, to
>>>pursue my affairs as I see fit.
>>
>>I hate to say this, boy, it hurts me to, but you sir are out to lunch
>>in an accelerated kind of way.

Well, shit, if you think WHIFFLE BALL JUGGLING is some kind of
a RIGHT - and I'd like to note, here, that word "juggling",
which is definitely not of good Anglo-Saxon stock, in fact I
think it's Indian, and you all know what the Indians are - never
heard anyone talk of "Blue Indians," have you? - then don't
you think growing a PLANT in your CLOSET, for god's sake, might
have something to do with your "right to privacy"?

Unfortunately this "right to privacy," while a beautiful
invention, an invention of wonderful creativity and originality,
a real work-of-art invention if I may say so myself, is also an
entirely bogus invention, and thus its inventors feel free to
take it or leave it as the feeling moves them.

Now if you want to actually put it IN the Constution, a little
amendment, just a little tiny one, sez "Regardless of the
heretofore aforesaid, nobody shall jone your hash if you be
not jonin' someone else's hash," then I should be all for this.
But that there day is a long time comin and be a long row to
hoe till it finally rolls down the pike.

c
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8383 alt.president.clinton:321