HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevinc@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE ()
Subject: Re: Rush's TV Show
Organization: Hewlett-Packard VCD
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:07:38 GMT

      I agree, I thought the format was purely ammature and
 yes, get rid of the card-board audience (no functionality). 

     This show needs to be at least an hour long. He rambles
 far to much to be held within the barriers of a 30 minute     
 time slot, i.e. Notre Dame game, blah blah woof woof, come
 on Rush get to the point times running out. Also, I think
 it would be better if they made it into a morning show, say
 7:00 am, rather than giving him the O' Dark thirty time slot
 where everybody and his mother is in bed. Next, get Bill Clinton
 as a guest on the show. I dissagree with having ONLY hard core    
 conservatives express their opinions. Get the other side on
 there and shoot em down in public, exposing them for what they
 really are ( weenie spineless liberals ). Thats how you make
 the show successful. Confront the wimps with the facts in 
 front of God and everybody. Thats what I want to see.  
 
     All in all, I was really glad to finally see what he looked
 like. I take him far less seriously now. 

 Kc
From: jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush's Book (A review)
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:31:11 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

Ladies and gentlemen.  I have a review for you.

Rush Limbaugh's The Way Things Ought to Be.  

His book details his life story from his early radio days.  Not only is 
the book about his philosophy, but it also has some of his best speeches
and monologs.

He talks about feminism, the environment, multiculturalism, and a myriad
of other topics.

The Blue Demon give The Way Things Ought to Be a 4.0 on the Demon Scale.

Read it. Enjoy it. Live it.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mwbg9715@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Wayne Blunier)
Subject: Re: At last, a conservative comic strip!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:09:17 GMT

>Now, of course, I haven't heard of one paper in the evil, liberal media
>pulling B.C. or the Wizard of Id lately, but plenty of them yank
>Doonesbury for daring to have an opinion. Go on. Tell me about
>the liberal media. 
Ok you asked for it.  How come when Mr. Quail makes a mistake such as 
mispelling a word, its all over the news for days, but when Bill 'I lied
to the draft board' Clinton says Patriot missiles can go through cracks
and down chimney, like we all saw on TV, the national news does not say
it.  
(And he thinks he should be in charge of the military!?)

mark
>--
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: jane fonda
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:54:16 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 11328@ryn.mro4.dec.com, shapiro@trade.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
>re: Jane going to Vietnam for her convictions
>Sure, where and when she WASN'T in a position where death was a viable reality.
>Plus, she used those convictions to espouse the Vietnamese rhetoric and
>propoganda.
>Remember when years later she recanted her efforts?
>There are not many things worse than a misguided zealot.

You got that right.  That's more reason to vote against Bush.  I can't think
of more misguided zealots than Reagan, Bush, Quayl, BuchananAZI, Robertson,
and Limbaugh, none of which, I believe, went to Vietnam.

---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 07:03:50 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.191117.13377@uncle.cmhnet.org> david@uncle.cmhnet.org writes:
>
>
>...all of which has nothing to do if someone can do the job or not.

Like being Commander in Chief?



--
Dan Stephenson                                           das9674@usl.edu
" BERLIN WALL FALLS.  3 BORDER GUARDS LOSE JOBS.  CLINTON BLAMES BUSH! "
        -George Bush, '92 Republican nomination acceptance speech
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: art@world.std.com (Al Thompson)
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger.  YUP!
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 18:43:48 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.180457.29835@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:

   In article JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com () writes:
[...]

   Thank you.
   >
   >Mr. Clinton lied repeatedly about the events surrounding his eventual
   >avoidance of the draft.  When caught, he fessed up.  Sort of.  Until
   >more facts came out.  Then he said "The people are all dead and I am
   >not going to say anything more."  The man is a self serving liar.
   >That is the point.  Many people found honorable ways to mesh their
   >anatgonism toward the Vietnam War and their own beliefs.  Clinton,
   >on the other hand, had his uncle pull strings.  Later, he lied about it.
   >How much clearer do you need this message, Mitch.  Clinton is, to use
   >your words, a "chickenhawk".  He avoids military service, lies about it
   >then says alot of testosteronic stuff like "well the first thing ah'd
   >do is an airstrike".  Mr. Bravery.  Audie Murphy almost.  Your choice.
   >Corporal Billie Bob Clinton.  Now.  Is that clear, Mitchie?

   All of what you state are lies, fabrications, distortions, and misstatements.
   His story has been consistent and has not deviated from his original statements.
   He has not lied about it.

Oh yes he has lied, right through his teeth.  There is a long article in
Sunday's Boston Globe detailing the untruths.  The great bastion of
liberal thought, the Globe no less.  It seems they turned up a friend of
his uncle's, a retired judge.  The good judge, his name is Hill, said he
and the uncle and a lot of other people were pulling strings all over the
place to keep Slick out of harm's way.

BTW his story has not been consistent.  When confronted with the news
that his uncle had helped he replied he didn't think it relevant.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: Far Right's New "Bill of Rights"
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 03:42:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.164309.21693@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.063848.8998@usl.edu>, das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A) writes:
>
>|> Funny, people view the Democrat Congress as the staple, the Way of doing things 
>|> - permanent, eternal.  And that only the Presidency changes parties.
>|> As George Bush has tried to explain many times, 'give me a Congress I can work
>|> with'.  It solely depends on your political views.
>
>	If things were different, they'd be different, but they're not,
>	so they're the same.
>
>George Bush would really like Republican congress. He would probably also
>like to see the national debt go way all by itself. Unfortunately, neither
>of these is very likely in the near future. It's not a subjective view,
>it's the way things are.

Aye, as when I said that people think 'people view the Democrat Congress 
as the staple'.  Things will not change unless you DO somehting about it.
*I* sure am not simply going to vote in Democrats because 'probably'
there will be a Democratically controlled Congress.

>With that in mind, blaming congress is like blaming gravity; even if the blame
>is well placed, it doesn't help matters, as neither is likely to change much
>next year. If George Bush is going to do better next term, he's going to
>have to do something different, and he doesn't seem very interested in 
>changing. With that in mind, a vote for Bush is a vote for more of the same.

I'd MUCH perfer 31 sustained vetos of wealth distribution and government
control than 31 signed bill.

LIKE I SAID, IT DEPENDS SOLEY ON YOUR POLITICAL VIEWS.

>                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
>"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
> nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God"
>                                     - George Herbert Walker Bush, Feb 1989 

Well, I for am a citizen.  I don't consider myself a 'patriot' in a
jingoistic fashion - the US is a good place to live.  Bush has his
own positions with which I disagree, but those are NOT ECONOMIC.


-- 
*Dan Stephenson   das9674@usl.edu  
*
* "To conquer death, you only have to die,..."                   
*                             -Jesus , from _Jesus Christ Superstar_
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5396 rec.humor:28686 talk.bizarre:30222 talk.politics.misc:45533
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 15 Sep 92 16:03:57 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Distribution: na
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Mike Schwartz) writes:
|> Thomas Arneberg) writes:
|> > >: Could you give an example of the Congress putting itself above the law?
|> >
|> > I'm pretty sure that Congress exempts itself from all quota legislation
|> > ("Affirmative Action"f  you prefer euphemisms). Why would they force
|> > businesses to do things that they themselves can't abide by?
|> >
|> Another easy example of congress putting itself above the law is the Bowlen
|> amendment, which prohibited sales of arms to the contras during Reagan's terms.
|> This amendment was highly unconstitutional, because the constitution does not
|> allow for one of the three branches to make laws to limit the contitutional
|> power of one of the other branches.  It is fully withing the Constitutional
|> powers of the president to sell arms to the contras - it's called foreign policy.
|> 
Very Lame.  Congress can pass a law which makes something illegal.
Importing drugs would be a good example.  Are you saying that it would
still be legal for the president to import drugs.  Wrong.  The president
cannot violate the laws of the land.  (Make that "should not."  They can
and do in violation of the constitution.)

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5191 alt.rush-limbaugh:4417
From: lipscomb@lonestar.utsa.edu (David S. Lipscomb)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger.  YUP!
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:12:29 GMT
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <LARRY.92Sep9091330@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>The mention of Hanoi Jane reminds me of a bumper sticker we saw:
>
>	Nuclear power plants are built better than Jane Fonda.

HOW ABOUT THIS ONE::

I am not Fonda Hanoi Jane.
>
>Slapped on the same bumper, right below it, was another:
>
>	But which would you rather spend the night with?
>
>Actually, the real difference between Jane Fonda and Dan Quayle is about
>100 IQ points.
>
>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..
>Yo! Bottoms up! US motto. Boy!
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Far Right's New "Bill of Rights"
Date: 13 Sep 92 03:39:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <1992Sep11.191905.22159@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>The President has only two choices: he can enforce the laws or he can refrain
>from enforcing the laws.  He can't make the laws.  He can ask for laws but if
>the Congress refuses to pass what he asks for, he has no recourse.  Since
>almost every proposal Bush makes to Congress is dead on arrival; and since the
>ones that aren't dead are molded to suit the Democrats, the majority party in
>both houses of Congress; by what rules do you absolve Congress and blame the
>President for the problems of the country.  "The buck stops here" may be a
>nice aphorism but one more apt may be "Give me the tools and I will do the
>job."

Well, part of dealing with Congress is compromising with Congress.

Take George Bush's recovery plan from the State of the Union address.

There were seven points in said plan. Congress passed six of those points,
and added a middle class tax cut (which Bush had promised to request
"later".) But, because they didn't just rubber-stamp his proposal,
he vetoed it. 

Remember, having divided government takes both the Executive and
Legislative branches. Both sides deserve the blame for governmental
problems.
-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: At last, a conservative comic strip!
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 11:35:00 GMT

jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:

>Well, I don't know if I would call it a *conservative* strip, but the 
>BC comic strip has had a couple of zingers recently that conservatives
>would like. Last week Wiley was sitting by a tree writing a poem about
>how when the Supreme Court Justices find themselves in Heaven trying 
>to explain their rulings against prayer and such they'd look in the 
>Constitution and find nothing there to support them. The poem was 
>much better phrased that this explanation, though.

>Today's strip (9/8) has patient BC asking psychiatrist Peter "how can 
>you tell if you're mind starts to go?" Peter replies "it's hard 
>to say ... there is only one *sure* sign - you will start to do jokes
>about Dan Quayle."

>I've liked Johnny Hart for almost 15 years. Now I know why!

I've been noticing Hart's strips (BC and Wizard of Id) have been
noticeably conservative and Christian since Easter this year.  I've
been wondering if he has just gotten more outspoken about his beliefs
or if he has just converted to Christianity or something.  

Today's BC strip was one of his dictionary genre: 
"R-U-4-86" - Are you for stiffing the kid?

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych)
Subject: Re: Cruise missiles and smart bombs
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:56:08 GMT

slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer) writes:

>Absolutely correct.  My old roommate worked on McDonell Douglas's SLAM
>production line, putting together the guidance bundles for it (the 
>Sea-Launched Air Missile, is what it stands for, I think).  They got 

SLAM: Stand-off Land Attack Missle

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: broberts@waggen.twuug.com (Bill Roberts)
Subject: Scarey tag line...
Organization: Brite Systems
Distribution: world,usa,na,alt
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 19:50:44 GMT

jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:

>-- 
>John Switzer               | 50 years from now, nobody will
>                           | remember Candice Bergen or Murphy
>74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Brown, but every school kid will
>jrs@netcom.com             | be taught about President Quayle.

The thought in that tag line is "scarey!",  and I am not talking about
the part about Bergen or Brown....

-- 
|  Bill Roberts, Va Beach VA   |  In the field of observation, chance  |
|  broberts@waggen.twuug.com   |  favors the prepared mind. - Pasteur  |

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: TKOZMA@cms.cc.wayne.edu
Subject: Ghost from a wishing well
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:58:02 GMT

I've always wondered what old time movie is it that has a ghost from a
wishing well.  Why hasn't Rush ever mentioned this?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Rush's TV Show
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 16:59:12 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

     I too have to admit that I was disappointed with the first
show.  I agree that the audience should go -- it is very
distracting.  Secondly, there was too much overlap between
the radio show and the TV show -- everything he said on the
TV show was already said on the radio show.  Maybe he should
concentrate on one current-event topic for a 30 minute show -- what
he did on the first show seemed schitzophrenic.  I don't necessarily
think he needs a guest on every show, but he does need to
exploit the *video* part of the show, i.e. more graphics
(not those dumb ones on the first show), pictures, video tape,
etc.  Those rehearsals didn't seem to help any.
     I really enjoy the radio show, so I guess I had high
expectations for the TV show.  I want this TV show to succeed.
We need to get these comments to Rush somehow, before his
faithful following starts to bail out.

     C. Perttunen

P.S.  Did anyone else notice how he kept adjusting his watch during
      the show?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Far Right's New "Bill of Rights"
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:32:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.191905.22159@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

>The President has only two choices: he can enforce the laws or he can refrain
>from enforcing the laws.  He can't make the laws.  He can ask for laws but if
>the Congress refuses to pass what he asks for, he has no recourse.  Since
>almost every proposal Bush makes to Congress is dead on arrival; and since the
>ones that aren't dead are molded to suit the Democrats, the majority party in
>both houses of Congress; by what rules do you absolve Congress and blame the
>President for the problems of the country.  "The buck stops here" may be a
>nice aphorism but one more apt may be "Give me the tools and I will do the
>job."

	It's not his fault, he's only the president!

	This excuse is so incredably lame that I'm surprised that people are
actually willing to make a case for it in public. There is no reason to
think that the house will lose it's democratic majority with this election,
although the Dems will lose a few seats. That means that Bush is going to
have the same problem next term as he did this term. If the president is
ineffective, it doesn't really matter why, he still shouldn't be president.

	George Bush was railroaded by congress because Dukakis was right,
George Bush is a wimp. He's not the first president to face a hostile 
congress, and he won't be the last. If he's going to roll over for congress
then he should either start likeing it or find a new line of work.

	I don't think that Clinton will roll over for congress. He will
agree with them more often, but I think that Clinton will leave his mark
on the country, unlike Bush who is just a placeholder for a better cantidate.
If you really don't like Clinton, then a placeholder is a good thing, but
it's foolish to think that Bush will be any different in a second term then
he was in the first.



-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
 nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God"
                                     - George Herbert Walker Bush, Feb 1989 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: jane fonda
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:18:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.150125.11328@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, shapiro@trade.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:

|> For example, did you ever consider that maybe someone felt that the war in
|> Vietnam was wrong, and that the protection of American citizens was proper?
|> Someone like that would have the conviction to join the national guard so that
|> in time of civil unrest, they could protect American citizens from an actual,
|> personal threat rather than from some 'conceptualized' thread 5,000 miles away.

	This is true, but it certainly wouldn't include Dan Quayle. Quayle
has been quite vocal about his support for Vietnam, his support for American
involvement in vietnam. I guess "American involvement" is differnt from
"Dan Quayles personal involvement".

-- 
                               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: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Scarey tag line...
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: world,usa,na,alt
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:00:20 CDT


In article <kmzn=br.jrs@netcom.com>, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
> In article <1992Sep14.195044.6499@waggen.twuug.com> broberts@waggen.twuug.com (Bill Roberts) writes:
> >jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
> >
> >>John Switzer               | 50 years from now, nobody will
> >>                           | remember Candice Bergen or Murphy
> >>74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Brown, but every school kid will
> >>jrs@netcom.com             | be taught about President Quayle.
> >
> >The thought in that tag line is "scarey!",  and I am not talking about
> >the part about Bergen or Brown....
> 
> Well, what about my backup .sig:
> 
> Quayle in 1996, 2000, and 2004 (once we fix that dang Constitution)

Of course, if the Republicans had not "broke" the consitution to 
begin with, they would not have this problem.  (Actually, it would
probably be Reagan vs Clinton this year).

-- 
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