HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Dixy Lee Ray & Lyndon LaRouche
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:02:53 GMT

alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>       There is, of course, much more source material in the book then 
>these articles, but IMHO, anybody who whould put *any* stock in anything
>that LaRouche printed is suspect. I don't know a legit scientist who would
>cite a LaRouche paper, and the fact that she does it casts serious doubts
>about her integrity.

    I don't know about that. It might raise questions about her judgement;
*not* for the material's contents (I have no information on the validity of 
what she quoted) but rather because of the association with the Larouche 
publication. In a way it might have been better for her to have gone to the 
sources from that article than to accept the possibility of "guilt-by-
association" arguments that would inevitably result from citing the 
Larouche-related material, but when you actually get down to the issue 
of academic integrity or even personal integrity, if you get an idea 
from a source then you're obligated to list that as the source even if 
it's Beelzebub in a bright red cloak.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: KKRUEGER@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Kurt R. Krueger)
Subject: Re: Newest Quayle Quote!
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:40:15 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11

In <4723@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu writes:

> From the Washington _Post_ today:
> At a gala, "where Bush praised his running mate as a man who has 'given
> better than he's got,' Quayle jokingly promised the President, 'I will
> not represent you at a spelling bee.
> 	"Quayle said that he spells LIBERAL:
> 
> 	C-L-I-N-T-O-N <<adding after a pause>> -E."

You didn't tell the whole story.  Mr. Quayle called Gov. Clinton a liberal,
and Gov. Clinton responded with something like, "Dan Quayle probably can't
even spell 'liberal.'"  That is when VP Quayle made the C-L-I-N-T-O-N-E
joke.  I thought he should have asked the governor if "inhale" ends in an
"e" or if "Gennifer" begins with a "g" or a "j".  Well, I suppose since
Mr. Quayle is a Republican, that would be sleaze.


--
/*        Kurt Krueger | kkrueger@zeus.unomaha.edu | kkrueger@unoma1        */
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4509 alt.rush-limbaugh:3634
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Date: 18 Aug 92 22:54:07 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug18.184507.13355@midway.uchicago.edu> shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse) writes:
>Whether you agree with the content or not, Buchanan gave a hell of
>a speech.  I mention this because (1) it's true and (2) because it's

 Buchanan went way out to the right on social issues. His protectionism is
a minority view within conservatives in general. He was probably using this
as an opportunity to reshape what the american perception of the extremist
right position is. This opportunity was handed to him on a silver platter
via the democratic supposed slide to the middle. The entire country has 
shifted to the right whether you like it or not. It is possible that he was
trying to offset Marios leftist speech.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:30:52 GMT

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> Look I was hoping to avoid debating abortion. This issue has been taking up
>a lot of net badwidth. When I saw the issue of government determining when
>life starts I thought I would enter the debate. I would prefer to debate
>the issue of Big Government determining when life starts without getting
>into the choice or abortion issue. Is that possible ?

    No.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Are the facts obscured?  was A fine opporitunity for flaming liberal flameage
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:18:30 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology


[Mark Gansle's genius deleted]

Mark has addressed the big point.  Just because there is no widespread  
Liberal Conspiracy (tm, even tho it doesn't exist) in the nation's media,  
that doesn't change the fact that most journalists in the major media are,  
in fact, liberals.  The individual choices that each newspaper, television  
station/network, etc. make may add up to what LOOKS like a conspiracy, but  
any thinker will realize that if there was such a conspiracy, we'd have  
found out about it long, long ago.

The light doesn't go on inside a journalist's head saying "Oh, let's screw  
George Bush today."  But there is a tendency for a journalist, however  
subtlely, to support his own ideological viewpoint when he does a story.   
That's human nature - don't deny it, because you can't.  What you can do  
is accept the fact that the bias is there (whatever bias it turns out to  
be) and extract the facts from wherever you can.

Now we get to the point of me starting this whole thread.  A journalist
is obligated by the nature of his profession to report the facts.  Is  
there a possibility, however remote, that a journalist may obscure some of  
the facts in order to make his ideological point?  And isn't it possible  
(nay, LIKELY) that the press is doing exactly that today, in favoring  
Clinton/Gore so much over Bush/Quayle?

Take that and chew on it a while.

By the way, has anybody heard what Danny Boy said today?  It was something  
along the lines of "if Clinton and Gore are moderates, then I'm a spelling  
champion!"

Love that Republican sense of humor...

clueless chuck
PearsoDC@NeXTWork.Rose-Hulman.Edu
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: EIB building vs Lake Wobegone
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:24:20 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <nate.479@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>
>    Sometimes the truth isn't particularly interesting or amusing, but it 
>would be if only a few facts were changed. I'd say that in that respect, 
>what Rush does and what Garrison does aren't all that much different.
>

 Is what Garrison doing different then what the Fourth Estate has been doing.
Note - the fourth estate is meant to describe those in the media and enter-
tainment complex who support big government. The Fifth estate was used by a
Chomsky fan to describe those in the media who support big government via
the CIA. Both labels are used to describe the medias love affair with big
government.
 Both are using fantasy to describe the real world and how big government
is the elixir to all that ails us. Tell a militant environmentalist that
ozone is a hoax, and he gives you this horrified stare and then spews out
all the big government brainwashing he has been subjected to. This is the 
same response that the anti-cold war people got from the pro-cold war crowd.
The real irony here is that fighting and destroying russian communism was
the best pro-environment thing we did in the 20th century. Take a vacation 
in any ex-communist country and you will see what I mean.
 Does this mean that militant environmentalism is the best thing we will
do to support socialism or statism?
 Just trying to show the ironies in the real world....

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Subject: Re: Tax Fairness
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 05:02:26 GMT

In article <mykes.0c8l@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
>FICA is a payroll tax.  People are taxed 15% (plus a fraction) on the first
>$59,000 in income they earn.  Money earned above $59K is not taxed at all
>(for fica purposes; income tax still applies :)  Thus FICA is a regressive
>tax on those who make $59K or less - they are paying 15% of their income.
>Someone making $1Mil is paying 15% on 1/20th of their income.
>
>There are two ideas receiving attention in this regard.  First is to increase
>the $59K boundry to something much higher.  IMO, no upper limit at all would
>be fine - and fair (everyone pays 15%, period).  However, I am not a believer
>in a flat tax rate (as in 15%), unless it is 0% :)  The second idea is to
>do "means testing" on recipients.  When I retire, for example, if I can reverse
>mortgage my home and/or have sufficient pension funds and/or have 401K plans or
>IRAs to give me sufficient income (to be determined), then I would not receive
>ANY Social Security benefits, even though I paid my $7500/year in FICA tax all
>my life.
>
>In some respects, the FICA "tax" isn't a real tax - since people paying the
>tax get their money back with interest...  However, some of us won't be
>getting any Social Security because the fund will go broke (due to aging
>baby boomers making a run on the bank) in the first few decades of the
>21st century.  FWIW, I KNOW I won't be getting any :)
>
The problem with the Social Security fund is that it has a huge SURPLUS.  Why
is that a problem?  Because the executive and legislative branches can't keep
their hands off it.  The government borrows from the trust fund to make the 
deficit look smaller.  But, as you said, the baby boomers will want that money
for their retirements (it should be theirs, after all) and so those of us still
paying federal income taxes will have to pay back all those IOU's to Social 
Security.

BTW, we will also be paying greatly increased FICA taxes because of the aging
of our population.   When Social Security began, there were something like
20 or 30 working people paying FICA taxes to support one beneficiary.  In a few
years, it is predicted to be 3 working people paying for each retiree.

Why?  More old people than young.  People live longer, and there's that post-
war bulge in births.  Also, Social Security has come to be regarded as just
another "right" of Americans, to have a generous retirement income from govt.
As a group, retired Americans experience poverty in far smaller numbers than
American children and infants.  (And children don't have lobbyists.)

Make of this what you will, but we are facing some *serious* financial problems
in the near future, and if you are under 40, you will be paying for it heavily.


David Christensen
chrisda@atlantis.cs.orst.edu
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberal press...   yeah, sure
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:13:00 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug14.231724.22745@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>After a week of keeping informal tabs,  I have come to conclusion that
>at least locally the press is fairly biased...   and fairly conservative.
>So the constant hue and cry about "Liberal press" does not hold water in
>Tucson, Az.  (on the other hand, there isn't a lot of water to hold in
>Tucson, Az.)
>
Compare local coverage to national coverage. The National Elite media is
the the primary center for most bias charges. Local stations do vary.
Local stations do however jump on the "feeding frenzy" which is started
by a national media outlet running a trashy story.

 Why did every network, every local station (in Los Angeles) carry the 
from the NY Times. This should go down in history as the dumbest liberal
news article written this year. 
 Why on earth would bush drop bombs on Iraq the very day the republican
presidential convention starts. That would take viewers away and probably
distract from the speeches which will be made. He wants everyone watching
the convention not watching bombs being dropped. 
 Total trash and every news outlet swallowed it.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 23:34:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: world,usa,na
Keywords: Buchanan Rush Limbaugh

In article <1992Aug19.140957.13428@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>> Mr. Clinton, however, has a different agenda.  
>> At its top is unrestricted abortion on demand.
>Which, of course, is a lie.  (Not that it is suprising 
>that Buchanan would resort to lying.)

Oh, really?  What restrictions on abortion are supported by
Clinton?  What restrictions on abortion are part of the
Democratic platform?

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: Birth control & R. Catholic dogma
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 17:09:20 GMT

In article <92227.064450MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

> Excellent post deleted only to save bandwith

I am a bit surprised that this thread has lasted so long on this group.
But I have enjoyed this discourse very much.  Most posters have been
sensitive, fair, and intelligent.  Think what it would be like if we
could do this with all topics.  Great stuff.  

Thanks,

Tim

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Will Raise YO
Date: 16 Aug 92 13:20:00 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: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

   .From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
   .Subject: Re: Clinton Will Raise YOUR Taxes - NOT!
   .Message-ID: <1992Aug8.233216.28058@seq.uncwil.edu>
   .Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 23:32:16 GMT


ZCS.>>   2.  Clinton and Gore have stated emphatically that they plan to raise
   .>>       the marginal rates on those making more than $200,000.

ZCS.>       The President and Vice-President cannot raise tax rates.

ZCS.Then, WHY is Rush saying that "Clinton will raise YOUR taxes"?

He will have no choice, or rather Congress will have no choice, to raise
our taxes to pay for the Democratic largess, or continue to put us
further into debt.  Surely, no one believes that raising taxes on those
that make over $200K is going to solve any problems?!  In fact, lowering
the taxes on them is more likely to generate more federal revenues, and
create more jobs, etc.

Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . Can I yell "MOVIE!" in a crowded firehouse?
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Tax Increases - A Little Truth
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:16:53 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 4298@news.ysu.edu, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>In a previous article, kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) says:
>>While reading article <1992Aug11.162155.20722@afterlife.ncsc.mil>, I noticed that
>>acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) said the following:
>> >George Bush's 1990 tax increase had 73 separate tax increases.
>>As Rush would say, please remember that "George Bush's" 1990 tax increase was
>>written, sponsored, and passed by your friends and mine, the Democrats in
>>Congress.  Bush didn't say "let's raise taxes," he said "Fine, I'll go along
>>with the Democrats to try to appease them."
>Hmmmm....I remember Bush saying "Read my lips:no new taxes", not "Read my
>lips:no new taxes (unless I have to appease the congress).
>Bush was a fool for ever making such a statement.  At least Clinton is
>acknoledging the fact that he will attempt to raise taxes.

How much of a fool could he be?  It worked, didn't it?

---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Media Bias?????
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 15:33:32 GMT

sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
>I can't wait til the debates.  I suppose though, that they will find some 
>way to bias THOSE too!

    Yeah, you know, I've noticed recently that the word "debate" begins 
with "de" making the whole idea biased towards the DEmocrats. Of course 
they could try to get around that problem by bending over backwards for 
the Republicans and calling them "rebates" instead.

    But you know if they did that then the Democrats would complain, so
they'll probably just have to call them "bates", even though it would
be confusing and disappointing to a lot of people from my part of the 
country. When they advertise that they're going to have televised "Live 
Bates", people around here are going to tune in expecting to see a bunch 
of minnows and worms...

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: catstyle@deja-vu.aiss.uiuc.edu (CatStyle )
Subject: John Switzer's transcripts available via anon ftp and gopher
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:25:47 GMT

I've been off this newsgroup for a while, so this is just a reminder that
all of John Switzer's transcripts (back to Sept. '91) are available via
anonymous ftp at deja-vu.aiss.uiuc.edu (128.174.53.10) in the
/misc/fun/rush.limbaugh dir.

And now all my archives are available via gopher.  If you have a gopher
server, you can add the following link:

Name=CatStyle's Archives
Type=1
Port=70
Path=1/internet.resources/Fun/CatStyle's Archives
Host=gopher.aiss.uiuc.edu

Or, if you have a gopher client, you can access them by:

gopher gopher.aiss.uiuc.edu 70

Then select Internet Resources
     select Fun
     select CatStyle's Archives

Enjoy Reagan and Buchanon tonight,

Jason R. Heimbaugh (CatStyle)
jrh@uiuc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4360 alt.rush-limbaugh:3545
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberal press...   yeah, sure
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:33:21 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

Had to post twice due to vi editor foulup. Sorry..  (Steve T.)

In article <1802@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.231724.22745@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>After a week of keeping informal tabs,  I have come to conclusion that
>at least locally the press is fairly biased...   and fairly conservative.
>So the constant hue and cry about "Liberal press" does not hold water in
>Tucson, Az.  (on the other hand, there isn't a lot of water to hold in
>Tucson, Az.)
>
Compare local coverage to national coverage. The National Elite media is
the the primary center for most bias charges. Local stations do vary.
Local stations do however jump on the "feeding frenzy" which is started
by a national media outlet running a trashy story.

 Why did every network, every local station (in Los Angeles) carry the 
story "President Bush plans to setup Iraq via UN inspectors and plans to
start dropping bombs on Monday and is doing it for political gain". This
story originated from the NY Times but had a Houston origin. All the media
outlets ran it as a front or headline story. This should go down in history
as the dumbest liberal news article written this year. 
 Why on earth would bush drop bombs on Iraq the very day the republican
presidential convention starts. That would take viewers away and probably
distract from the speeches which will be made. He wants everyone watching
the convention not watching bombs being dropped. 
 Total trash and every news outlet swallowed it.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:41:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <1992Aug19.203155.25224@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>The media used the "pro-choice" label 97 percent of the time when referring
>to the pro-abortion side of the debate.  They used the "pro-life" label just
>21 percent of the time when refering to the anti-abortion side (usually 
>calling them "anti-abortionists").  Again, this has nothing to do with the
>validity of the two sides' choice of names--only whether or not the media
>chooses to use the chosen (positively spun) label, or whether it instead 
>makes the judgement that another (more accurate?) label should be used.  

Well, I think your mistake is in assuming that pro-choice ==
pro-abortion and pro-life != anti-abortion.  I find the pro-life label
dishonest because it implies that since I'm pro-choice I am therefore
anti-life and pro-abortion.  Geez, I guess I'll have to mow over some
bicylists on my way home this evening and I'll have to quit neglecting
my job of recommending abortions to my pregnant co-workers.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.