HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Environment
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:23:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Nov16.185851.6268@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>In article <BxovxI.LHD@andy.bgsu.edu> jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>> 
>>Therefore, I would contend that the media coverage has completely
>>overshadowed any gains he may have made.  Look at the spotted owl
>>coverage, for example, as compared to the example of wetlands that
>>I sited elsewhere.  Good news might make it on the local
>>level, on occassion, but it seldom sees national coverage.
>
>The "spotted owl" issue is perhaps a hallmark of Bush's true environmental
>colors.  Bush wanted to put the economic issues ahead of the scientific
>ones in this case.  Here we have a law that puts science on equal footing
>with politics, and when some economic toes get stepped on, look what 
>happens, the politicians scramble to gut the law.  And Bush was leading
>the charge.
>
>What is the "spotted owl" issue?  Contrary to common opinion, it is NOT
>about owls; it's about habitat.  The owl is an "indicator species", meaning
>that the health of its population indicates the health of the underlying
>ecosystem upon which it relies.  We could eradicate the owl with [probably]
>no adverse effects to the ecosystem.  If we endanger the ecosystem, the
>owl suffers.  By spouting nonsensical hyperbole about owls vs. jobs, one
>is misleading people.  Again, Bush was a visible proponent of this nonsense.
>
>No, the true issue is why should an industry (big timber companies) be 
>allowed to raze the last 5% of old growth timber to provide 5-10 more
>years of jobs?  And it's a red herring anyway, since only a particular
>type of job will be lost, with a shift in milling operations to younger
>timber resulting.  Bush and anyone else who argues for continued non-
>sustainable clearcutting of old-growth forests do not give a damn about
>the local economies.  What happens when the old-growth is gone?  The big
>timber companies move out, on to greener pastures (pun intended), leaving
>the locals to fend for themselves in retooling mills to handle the smaller
>less profitable logs.  Nope, Bush was catering to big business and at the
>same time resorting to demagoguery with his rhetoric.

Did you hear the report on Rush's show yesterday?  It said that a recent 
study found 10 times as many spotted owl's as the enviro-wacos claimed 
that there were.

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:05:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.090457.956@mic.ucla.edu> rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Bria
n Rush ) writes:

>no flames please - I am just providing factual information:
>
>In fact, religious left is very large, perhaps larger than the religious
>right.
[...]
>(2) those Christians who are considered, from a religous/theological
>viewpoint, liberal (they vastly outnumber conservative Christians, and they
>are mostly politically liberal too; many conservative Christians would say
>that these liberals should not be counted as Christians)

     I wish! This is a fact!?!?!?
     Mainline "liberal" churches, such as the Unitarians, Presbyterians, some
Lutherans and Methodists, etc. have been losing adherents for 30 years now.
They have but a shadow of their former power in American life.
     By contrast, the Southern Baptist and Mormon churches are flourishing. I
believe that there are more Baptists than there are adherents to all mainline
churches put together (if I'm wrong, I'm still close). Plus, if the Roman
Catholic church can be considered "conservative" (and much of it can be), then
you have to add many of the 52 million American Catholics onto the conservative
side.
     It is true that many of us are not considered Christians; that's the only
"factual" information Brian provides here.

>(3) the mayority of Jews (I am basing this on the fact
>that I personally know very many Jews, several of which very actively live out
>their religion, and they are the ones who tell me that the vast majority of
>american Jews are democrats.)

     There are more Mormons than Jews, the growth rate of the former is vastly
greater than the growth rate of the latter. It is true that most Jews voted for
Clinton, just as it seems to be true that most Mormons voted for Bush. In
future years, the latter statistic will rise in importance compared to the
former, esp. in states like California, Washington, and Arizona.
     Sorry to burst your bubble, Brian, but you're not as powerless as you seem
to think you are.

                                        Steve
///
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Expansion of alt.fan.rush-limbaugh proposed
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:58:46 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov16.180352.23544@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Nov14.161601.7874@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>,
> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes...
> 
>>alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.politics - (Unmoderated) 
>>alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.transcripts - (Moderated) 
>>alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show - (Unmoderated) 
> 
> I am opposed. In fact, I would like to see a SINGLE r-l newsgroup. 
> 
> The argument I have is that when you split up related topics into separate
> groups, people wind up expanding their cross-posting and so we wind up with
> even more redundancy to wade through. 
> 
> For example, when John posts the transcript, there are quite a few responses to
> them. So, someone responding to his post would probably cross post it into one
> other (if not all) newsgroups. This will 'snowball' and I perceive that all
> that this would do is create a lot of redundancy.

You're right, of course.  So which should now be removed: alt.politics.clinton 
or alt.president.clinton? <g>  (Now *there's* a straight line for somebody...)

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
  
"He walks again by night!  Out of the fog, into the smog -- doggedly...
relentlessly... ruthlessly... toward his weekly meeting with The Unknown..." 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:36:31 GMT

jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:

>MY QUESTIONS IN THIS POST ARE OPEN TO ANYONE, NOT JUST BRIAN.
>In article <1992Nov5.085041.13736@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu
> (brian h. harper) writes:
>>Top 2 IF NO ONE GETS A MAJORITY. You're assuming that the top 2 will always
>>be Republican or Democrat. Bad assumption. The main reason to switch is so
>>that there will be an end to "strategic voting". People who supported Perot
>>could have voted for him without fear of having their vote "wasted".

>This is interesting.  Just out of curiosity, if we didn't have an electoral
>college, then how long do you think the standoff 
>between three parties could go on?  Would it be 34% of the vote is majority,
>and when the third party is out make it 50% for the remaining two?  What
>would we do for a President if we went for months without electing anyone by
>majority vote?

I think you miss the point. The "standoff" would be at very most 1 extra
election, and then only if the top vote getter didn't get 50% of the vote.
If it did go to a second election, only the top two vote getters would be
running, so one of them would get at least 50% of the votes. This was all
explained in previous postings, but was not reflected in the above posting,
which might explain your confustion.

>>Many polls have shown that Perot would have gotten much more support had 
>>people thought he could win.
>In light of this, who do you think would have won a majority?

I can't speak for anyone buy myself, but I still think that President-Elect
Clinton would have won (This even though I voted for Bush).
-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
From: snodgras@lclark.edu (Bil Snodgrass)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Spotted Owl/Re:The Environment
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:54:54 GMT
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR

I lived in several logging communities back in the 60's and 70's.
Back then the loggers knew there would be an end one day to logging.
And there will be one one day soon.  Here in the Northwest if all
the eligable forest lands are logged off there will be a 30 wait 
until the new growth is mature enough to be harvested.  This has
been a known fact.

Also, timber is a very beautiful resorce.  What the hell are we doing
sending it out to other countries?  I would like to keep it all here 
in the states.  We don't have enough to share....We have a large 
enough market to sale it here only.

Plus why are the logging companies sending the logs out of the country
to be processed?  The logging companies themselves are sending jobs
out of this country.

I don't want to take sides.  I want to solve this problem so we can
maintain our forests for recreational and logging use...It can be done.

It is time that the forest stop being raped.  Several weeks ago a person
showed me an aireal of the forest around Mt. Hood.  The forest ten years
ago use to be lush and gourgeous.  Now it is like a patch quilt for miles
and miles.

And funny thing is is that now that the enviromentalist have come 
out so forcfully the logging industry all of a sudden is
introducing this new procedure in logging called selective 
harvesting.  Something that many of us have wanted and called
for for decades.

Bil Snodgrass III
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: jacksonk@polaris.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: Rensselaovic Polytechnicov Institustica
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:56:08 GMT

In article <1e6b57INNgqb@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>In article <BxopKz.FIq@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>Another?  Camille Paglia.  Whenever she tries to speak with Feminazis present,
>>she gets shouted down.

Well, I think this person used the generic Feminazi, rather than
Rush's definition -- substitute radical outspoken feminists for
Feminazis.

>She can't be very bright then.  Rush says there are only 13 (or so)
>Feminazis around, you'd think Camille could have someone stop any (or
>all) of the 13 at the door.  Or even schedual around whereever the 13
>are going to be.

>>Nuff said.

>Yup.

>(oh, for the people lacking a clue phone  :-)

Oh what wit.  I guess you just blew that argument away, didn't you?
-- 
__ __  ____ ______ ______ __  __ 	Keith Jackson
|| // ||    | || | | || | ||  ||
||<<  ||==    ||     ||   ||==||	jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu
|| \\ ||___ |_||_|   ||   ||  ||
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle)
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Keywords: Engle
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:35:33 GMT


No, just laugh at your shortsightedness.   Maybe I should use smaller words
or send some margin-notes to you.  You included the entire text of my letter
to Engle, maybe you should read it again, Engle seemed to understand it.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 14:22:16 GMT

In article <9799@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dejst5+@pitt.edu (David E
Joslin) writes:

>What phrase would you want them to use for the "religious right"?  
>"Religious" alone is clearly too broad; believe it or not, there are
>some *liberals* who are deeply religious, too.  The real problem with
>the term "religious right" is that it is still too broad, since
>there are religious people who are conservatives, but who are not
>part of the movement that wants to impose fundamentalist values on
>everyone.  So, what name do you suggest instead?

I suggest the Party of God, since they are our version of the
Hezbollah.  Or we could call them "Christian extremists" or "Christian
fundamentalist extremists", since that also is used all the time for
Moslems.


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:28:13 GMT
Subject: Re: The Mondale-Clinton Coalition
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

In alt.rush-limbaugh, aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
> 	According to Dan Rather on Election Night, Bill Clinton
> had "broken up the Reagan Coalition."  Did he really?  Some interesting
> numbers shed light on this question.  
> 			Mondale % 	Clinton %
> ---------------------  -----------     -----------
> Total Voting Pop.	  40		  43
> Republicans	           7              10
	[some numbers deleted]
> Black Voters		  90		  82  (Interesting!)
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> White Voters		  35		  39  
> Hispanic Voters		  62		  62
> 
> (New York Times exit polling)
> 
> 	In most cases, these numbers are statistically the same.   Bill
> Clinton won fair and square, but he did so, apparently, by  holding on to
> the Democratic base, letting Perot and Bush split the other voters.
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	not soooo interesting, as you yourself point out!
	most blacks are (1) disenfranchised w/ this political
	system; (2) disenchanted by the democrats; and (3)
	fed up with the government... surely in an election
	year with a viable independent, you're gonna get the 
	numbers listed here.

> 
> 
> Andrew Aiken   
> 
>   
 
peace to all,
pjm.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10260 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9030
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch Day 17
Date: 21 Nov 92 06:11:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <grendel.722306065@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <1992Nov20.140810.25756@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
>
>>In article <41298@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> Pim van Meurs, pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu
>>writes:
>>>instance. I admire Rush for his ability to mislead so many people
>>>into believing he is something more than just an entertainer who is
>>>often more wrong than right but says what people want to hear or
>>>believe.
>>>Sure, Rush will be around as long as people need to be told what to
>>>believe. Guess that's why there is no liberal equivalent of Rush.
>
>>You mean like Phil Donahue, Geraldo Rivera, Dan Blather, Tom Brokaw, 
>>Vlademir Pozner, Arsenio Hall, Jay Leno, Whoopi Goldberg? 
>>That is all I could think of in about 10 seconds.
>
>Took you 10 seconds?  It shows.
>
>Rivera a liberal?  Give me a break.  He's about as liberal as Charles
>Bronson.  And explain, please, how Leno is a liberal.  What, he makes
>Quayle jokes?  So does everybody except you.  They're entitled.  It's
>time to realize that the media is not biased against _conservatives_,
>but against _power_.
>
>And anyway, none of the people you mentioned are liberal equivalents of
>Rush.  Rather and Brokaw are newscasters, not talk radio deejays.  Goldberg
>is principally an actress.  And Donahue, Hall and Leno host talk shows,
>usually with figures in the world of entertainment, and are not politically
>oriented.  Rush Limbaugh is an ideologue.  He is an openly conservative
>commentator who admittedly relies on opinion, not fact.  There is still
>no equivalent to him in the media, despite your conspiracy theory.

Obviously you missed Alan Colmes.  You must not know much about talk 
radio.  Hmmm, funny that you would make claims about something you know 
so little about.

FYI there are only two national, issue-oriented, no-guest-type, radio 
talk shows in the US (Probably setting myself up here.) The two hosts 
are Rush Limbaugh-Conservative, and Alan Colmes-Liberal.

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Liberal Agenda
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:53:16 GMT

In <1992Nov18.223342.11374@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <bill.722026438@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:

>>It's easy - the ones with outies shower in one bathroom, and the ones
>>with innies shower in another.  If anyone touches anyone else in
>>the shower (assuming it's a public shower), they're thrown out.

>Now we get to the real reason why gays want to be in the military.  They 
>want to take showers with men so they can see a bunch of naked men's 
>bodies.  	

Ted, what the *FUCK* gives you the power to decide what gay men want?
Are you psychic?  Somehow I really doubt it.
"Gee, I want to see a bunch of naked men.  What's the easiest way I could
do that?  Let's see...ah!  I know!  I'll join an organization that may
result in me losing my life!  One where homophobia is more concentrated
than in any other place in the nation!  Yeah..."

>  Get a clue!  	

If you want to talk to yourself, do it on e-mail, not on the net.

>oh!  I forgot!  Straights are not a minority, so their feelings are not 
>taken into account.

Straights are not the victims of verbal and physical abuse in this country.
If you're a man and you shout "I have a girlfriend!" in Grand Central Station,
no one will care.  But if you're a man and you shout "I have a boyfriend!"
in Grand Central Station, someone's going to throw an egg at you.

Straights are not a minority, and they are not victims of discrimination.
Therefore, their "rights" are not an issue.
From: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:42:52 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) writes:
>>As for a "public reference to religion" being extremism, don't be silly.
>>Extremism is Pat Puke-cannon's declaration of "religious war" on those
>>who don't agree with him.  See the difference?
>
>   Sinead O'Connor seems to think there's a religious war on, too, and 
>I'd bet she's no conservative.  

But I never called Sinead a member of the "Religious Right," which is
what this thread is about.  Nor did I ever deny that there are
extremists on both sides.  (As someone said here, extremism begets
extremism.)  

The whole point of my article was to disagree with you when you said
"religious = religious right."  That simply isn't true.  Believe it
or not, there are religious people who do not want to impose their
personal beliefs on others.  Some are even conservatives.  

>   And in reply to your term for Patrick Buchanan, I'd say: QED.

Explain what you mean here.  I called him "Pat Puke-cannon," as an 
expression of my disgust at his desire to impose his value system
on everyone else.  (And general disgust with the direction taken
by the Republican party, which is why they lost my vote.  Let's hope
they have the guts to run someone like William Weld in '96.)

I'm in favor of allowing Pat Buchanan to express his views, no matter
how vile I think they are.  And I reserve the right to say how vile I
think they are.  That's called freedom of speech, not "religious war."

See the difference?

David
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Subject: Re: Chelsea insult, apology
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 07:13:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.154332.7248@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.230140.18099@tellab5.tellabs.com> linda@tellabs.com (Linda Jensen) writes:
>>
>>
>>
>>	RE: the alleged 'mistake' where photos of Celsea Clinton
>>	and Millie the dog were switched...
>>
>>	Isn't that show taped?  So couldn't the 'mistake' have
>>	been corrected before air time?  Didn't those involved in
>>	the show recognize tastelessness and cruelty?
>
>Get a clue - the show is uplinked on the satellite at 8 p.m. EST, while 
>Rush has already said that the pre-production meetings occur in early 
>afternoon and we know that callers are supposed to call from 5:30 to 
>7:00 pm. An hour and a half to shoot 22 minutes of show is not a heck 
>of a lot, especially when you have a studio audience that you want to 
>keep fired up and entertained.
>
>So, after shooting there is less than one hour to edit and transmit the 
>show, which any professional in the biz will tell you is not a lot of 
>time at all. 
>-- 
>John Switzer               | "If you ask me, Larry, the Clinton Presidency
>                           | has failed. What has he done? Nothing!"
>CompuServe: 74076,1250     | --Dave Barry to Larry King, November 12, 1992
>Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | (P.S. Impeach Clinton, support the coup!)

yeah, right... time constraints... any professional in the biz.. etc.
I'm amazed.  Someone really thinks these sort of "accidents" come from
Rush by accident?  Rush has never seemed too restrained by good taste
before--isn't that part of the appeal of the show, being a little bit
outrageous?

And if it was really an accident, well... do you think he'd let it go to
air that way if it was Marilyn Quayle's face switched with the dog?
I'd be really surprised.

Rush is a lot of things-- entertainer, tireless campaigner, satirist--
but I don't think sincerity is at the top of his roster.


---
David Christensen

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9771 alt.politics.bush:13904 alt.politics.clinton:17218