HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Thu 8/20/92
Keywords: Unofficial Rush Limbaugh Rebuttal
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:51:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman) writes:
From Summary Thu 8/20/92 (jswitzer):
->o       Rush says that many people seem to think that the rich
->are evil hedonists who have cheated or inherited their wealth.
->This is simply not true with the rich, nor is it true that Rush
->is just wasting his time in Houston. He, along with many others,
->are working hard while in Houston, just like the rich work hard
->to get their wealth in the first place.
->
-Not to disparage the many rich and well-off people who have worked hard
-for their money, but most of the super rich have made their money the old 
-fashioned way - they inherited it!  An examination of the pinko rag Forbes
-400 list shows that most on that list have indeed inherited their lucre.
-
-Rush saying this is consistent with his deification of the rich, but he should
-remeber that Our Saviour said that it is easier for a rich man to pass through
-the eye of an needle than to enter the kindom of heaven.

Uh, I think the correct quote is that it's easier for a CAMEL to pass
through an eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of
heaven. But that's another story.

I don't remember Sam Walton having inherited his wealth, but again
that's one of a perceived general trend as the psoter has written. But
regarding people inheriting their wealth, great for them, but they have
to find ways to keep it and not be worse off than when they began. But I
don't think that the Forbes 400 is a "pinko list." I doubt most of them
favor socialism or communism as opposed to free enterprise.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I have entered the week of transition from my summer job at NIH to fall
semester at Duke. I will not be able to reply to everyone. If you want
to continue a thread, please email replies to me until I can post again.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D)
Subject: Re:  Clinton, draft dodger.  YUP!
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 01:12:52 GMT


Linda Jensen writes
> 
> 
> 
>  [discussion of Quayle and Clinton draft hijinks omitted]
> 
> > 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?
> 
> > Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves  
nothing." 
> > jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
> 
> 
> 	Clinton is on record as opposing the Vietnam war.  True, 
> 	it was probably 10% 'I oppose the Vietnam Policy' and 90%
> 	'I don't want to die'.
> 
> 	Whereas Quayle was always been a pro-military hawk.  Have
> 	you ever heard the phase "Having the courage of your 
> 	convictions" ??
> 
> 	Guess it's o.k. to 'fight the good fight' as long as others
> 	do the dirty work.  And please don't try to equate the
> 	Indiana National Guard with the jungles of Vietnam.
> 
All right, so Dan didn't go to Vietnam.  So Slick Willie didn't go either.   
SO WHAT?!?!?  I'm getting sick and tired of this debate.

When Vietnam happened, both those guys were under 25, I know (under 21, I  
think).  Haven't you done stupid stuff in your youth?  Stuff you regret?
Stuff that, if you ran for public office, would be embarrassing to you?
I know I have.

The question is, where do these guys stand now?  Do they actually have a  
stand?  I submit to you that Dan Quayle's beliefs and convictions, much as  
one may agree or disagree with them, are out there for all to see  
nonetheless.  Example:  Dan Quayle has been a champion of the free market  
ever since he was elected and went to great pains to get the Council on  
Competiveness formed by the end of his second (first?) year in office.  He  
did a bit of lobbying for the Council during his acceptance speech a  
couple of weeks back.  There can be no reasonable question raised about  
what he stands for.  Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has been on both  
sides of almost every issue that has come up.  Example:  the North  
American Free Trade Pact.  I watched Bill Clinton on NBC Nightside last  
month say that the NAFTP was a good thing and would probably get more  
blue-collar jobs into the American Economy.  Now he's saying the exact  
opposite every chance he can get.

In fairness, George Bush has flip-flopped on a number of things, too.

Now yielding the soapbox...

clueless chuck
PearsoDC@NeXTWork.Rose-Hulman.Edu
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Florida
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:04:42 GMT
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


Do you know why Bush was so slow in sending troops to Florida?

Because they have less oil than Kuwait.
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% f
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:27:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

To: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

RS>Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% f
RS>Message-ID: <1992Aug20.180711.28336@midway.uchicago.edu>
RS>Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:07:11 GMT

shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu, Roger Shouse writes:

RS>In article <1992Aug20.165207.18260@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Mi
RS>r) writes:
RS>>
RS>>Funny...
RS>>Aren't an overwhelming majority of the rich and powerful conservative
RS>>Republicans?

RS>I understand that there are 27 millionaires in the US Senate and that 21
RS>of them are Democrats

Hehhehe,  Thank you!


RS>>>When is someone going to tell Peter, Dan, and Tom that this is not a
RS>>>socialist country.  Did they forget?  They are whiners.  Let us now call
RS>>>them whiners.
RS>>
RS>>I don't think anyone was saying this was a socialist nation.  But I don't
RS>>think the idea of our government working to provide incentives to business
RS>>to keep jobs on shore is a socialist idea, either...
RS>>

RS>You mean like cuts in capital gain taxes?

Right on!  People seem to have a problem with the concept that jobs are
not created by the poor.

Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . 0014 . Don't let school interfere with your education .
                                                                          
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kari@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Dave)
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% f
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:54:14 GMT

> . OLX 2.2 . Elephant : a mouse built to government specs. - Heinlein
>                                                                                                              
---===If people acted like the government, you'd call the cops.===---
                                                     -Kari

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:09:15 GMT

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> The slaves may be free because the majority decided they should be. The 
>slavery issue may have just been one of the first divisive issues used by
>socialists.

Great, now Lincoln and the Republican party are a socialist offshoot
of the Whigs.

---
Merlyn LeRoy
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Woody Allen, evil Democrat example
Date: 26 Aug 92 19:26:56 GMT
Distribution: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

To Rush's credit, he read aloud a letter which criticized his comments
linking Woody Allen's so-called "family values" to political criticisms 
of Democrats.

Then, shortly afterward, he proceeded to replay his tired assertions 
that Woody Allen's moral values reflected the pre-dominant liberal
permissive philosophies of the Democratic party. 

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.

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'm one of those idiots who paid back all his student loans, with interest..
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Bush's broken promises (w
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:02:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh


  .Subject: Bush's broken promises (was Re: Clinton's broken promise)
  .Message-ID: <1992Aug22.134641.24704@news.ysu.edu>
  .Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
  .Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 13:46:41 GMT

ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  (Kelley Miller) writes:

KM.In a previous article, ATERO@ASUACAD.BITNET () says:

KM.>Has anyone heard a satisfactory explanation from Clinton as to why he went b
  .>on his promise not to run for president if he was elected governor?
  .>
  .>I heard this on a local talk show while the host was interviewing a Clinton
  .>campaign worker.  His job was to cover the convention and point out lies tol
  .>by the republicans. A caller asked him about it and he conceded it was true
  .>but changed the subject when the caller sought an explanation.

KM.It's not like Bush has never broken any promices

Name a politician that hasn't.  It seems that is synonymous with
politics.

KM."Read my lips: No new taxes"
  ."3,000,000 new jobs in the next 4 years"

Sigh.... Bush already discussed that mistake, and I doubt he will make
that one again.  The jobs?  Well, he made that statement based upon the
premise that our Democratic congress passed the econcomic packages that
he asked for.  They didn't, so the jobs didn't happen either.  I don't
think it is appropriate to hold one individual accountable for all
things including those beyond his power.  Of course, it is also a
mistake to assume that the President has all this power to do all of the
things that he promises.

KM.And of course, he hasn't broken the express promices inherant with being
  .given the job, like

KM.Taking care of America and Americans first...
  .Working in the best interest of his constituients...(oh, I forgot...he did..
  .the rich have gotten richer...)

Thank goodness!  Think of where we would be if they got poorer!

Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . This door is Baroque, please call Bach later.
                                                                                            
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 8/31/92
Originator: rja@redwood26
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: world,usa,na
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:53:54 CDT


> Phone   Elizabeth from Augusta, GA

> Elizabeth is tired of hearing how qualified Clinton is to be
> Commander-in-Chief, and she is furious at how the press is
> treating him with kid gloves. She saw Brent Bozell on CSPAN
> Sunday, and Bozell presented flow charts and other diagrams that
> showed how totally biased the media's coverage was about the
> Democratic and Republican conventions.

> For example, not once did the media use the label "liberal"
> during the Democratic convention,

Huh?  Who's "media" coverage are they refering to?  I remember 
hearing "liberal" and similar terms ("left", "far left", etc) all
durring PBS's coverage of the Dem's convention.

>                                    yet they used dozens of labels
> like "extreme right-wing" and "born again mob" to characterize
> the Republican convention. Elizabeth wants to know if Bush and
> the GOP stands a chance against this bias.

> Rush says that the gap between Bush and Clinton in the polls is
> closing, and the press is befuddled totally.

ABC had a poll last night showing Clinton's lead back up to ~20 pts.

>                                              The New York Times
> reports that Clinton's lead over Bush has dropped in two surveys,
> but this story is hidden on page 39A. The press really thinks
> that the American public is a bunch of idiots who can be led by a
> media pied piper. Yet the media's candidate has lost in the last
> three Presidential elections.

I thought Reagan won in '80 & 84.

> Rush encourages Elizabeth by telling her that she is not the only
> one who notices these things. One of Rush's Democratic friends
> even mentioned how one-sided the news coverage on the election
> is. Reasonable people who don't normally believe in conspiracy
> theories are now wondering if this bias has been orchestrated by
> somebody in cloaked-filled rooms. Thus, people are aware of this
> overwhelming bias, and the media is not being given a free ride
> by the American public.

Oh yea, *ALL* the media is in on a consperacy.  Tell it to Oliver Stone...

-- 
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
From: TRW108@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: undeniable truths of life
Date: 3 Sep 92 18:34:14 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Does anyone have a copy of Rush's so-called "Undeniable truths of Life?"
I would appreciate a copy.  Thanx. ;)

_______________________________________________________________________
Ted West                                                   814-862-7589
Internet: TRW108 @ Psuvm.Psu.Edu                       617 Mifflin Hall
Bitnet:   TRW108 @ Psuvm                      University Park, PA 16802
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:36:05 GMT

In article <mykes.0d78@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>, mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

|> > 	What country are you from? Where I live, the oppertunity to vote
|> > out a congress member comes up every couple of years, [...]

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

	Uh, huh. And the white house chief of staff is now George Bushs
campaign manager, at taxpayers expense. what of it? He's still going to lose.
Franking priveleges give incumbants an advantage, being able to preempt
the duties of the Secretary of State to help with teh campaign gives 
incumbants an advantage, being able to pass out pork during the primaries
gives incumbants an advantage, but nobody forces you to vote one way or
another. If the people vote for people they don't like, then they get a
government that they disserve.

	So glad to have you back, Mike, I really missed your perspective,
and nobody else seems to see things quite the way you do.

-- 
                               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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Polls and the Liberal Media
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:35:00 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

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

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

	Blinton:  46%
	Cush:     40%

Sheewww, that's a substantial difference folks.

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

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

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

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

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

======================================================
 Teddy Kalivoda  ------------> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu 
   University of GA Computing & Network Services       
     Inst.of Higher Education               
=====================================================                                                                          
	"The sleep of reason gives rise to monsters"
				        (Goya, Caprichos)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Keywords: 'Y'
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:59:00 GMT

In article <1854@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:

|>  The entire system is rigged. Remember Jerry Browns speeches. He was right
|> on the money about political corruption. Until this year most politicians
|> on the hill were reelected rather easily. No one could vote them out. 

	What country are you from? Where I live, the oppertunity to vote
out a congress member comes up every couple of years, regardless of who's
in office. It sounds like you've been listening to Jerry Brown (Or Rush
Limbuagh) long enough to completely detach from reality.

|>  Do you honestly think the people would have allowed government to go
|> into such tremendous debt if they had direct control over the money
|> the government was stealing from them ? 

	Yes. Most people in this country are quite happy with their reps,
although they don't like congress as a whole. While most of the country
is displeased with the government debt, those same people would be even 
more displeased if they were forced to fork out more taxes or lose the 
services that are the source of the debt. Again, what they want is to
take away other people services while preserving their own.

	I expect we'll here more of this after the election, when the 
republicans have to explain why they lost. Unable to cope with the fact
that somewhere along the line, they stopped being the Party of Ronald
Reagan and started being the party of Jerry Falwell, they'll talk endlessly
about liberal conspiricies and political corruption. Blame the commies,
blame the fags, blame the atheists, never consider that moral majority
and the christian coalition don't really represent this country. What
can I say, I'm bored of it already.

-- 
                               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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Date: 3 Sep 92 23:12:39 GMT
Distribution: world, usa, na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Sep2.173717.18949@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>>How about not teaching morality, and letting the parents teach it at home?
>>Or would you prefer that the government, or it's representatives (teachers)
>>instill their morality on your kids?
>
>Teachers are hardly "representatives" of some anonymous "government." Rather,
>teachers are and always ought to be representatives of the parents who make
>up the community - and teachers should always have to answer to those parents
>who pay the majority of their salary. Seen in this light, perhaps it is 
>reasonable to think that parents should have some influence over what is
>taught in their schools - even if it is "morality."
>
>-ACF


Okay... I grew up in a mid-western town where the protestant and the 
catholic kids would gang up and beat the shit out of each other after 
school, except when we ganged up together to kick a jewish kid. 

So let us say we have a nice common mix in our community:

A buncha Lutherns
A few less Catholics
A few Jews
An Anglican
A couple of Fundamentalist Charismtics
A couple of Buddhists (Asian Immigrants)
Two or three Moslim families.
A Shinto family
A few atheists
A bunch who really don't care

Now,  what happens when we try to teach religion and morality based on
religion?   Do we teach the ten commandments?  What about the Buddhists,
do their wishes get ignored because they have the bad taste to be
in the minority?  Or do we teach the eightfold path too?   And what about
the Shinto family?  Most teachers don't have a clue about that one...

And what do we do when the teacher says that the transubstantiation
is not real?  As I remember,  the 30 years war was ought over that one.

And of course, if you ignore the Quran and prefer the Bible then it is 
the Moslims duty to take up the sword and compell you...

And the Fundies will be pissed no matter what you do.

Maybe we should just avoid this mess,  and try to teach precepts that
are commonly accepted among all religions (murder is bad, theft is bad,
being nice to old people is good),  and let the parents provide what
they see is the underlying religious or ethical reasons at home...

And precepts which are not universally upheld by all relgions... 
well, let the parents teach those.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh