HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:  Clinton, draft dodger.  YUP!
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:04:57 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com () writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.222236.22226@lsil.com>
>mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
>>What does military service, including the NG have to do with the ability to
>>serve as commander-in-chief, anyway?  I fail to see this.  It's certainly
>The attribute of military service is relevant to one's ability to understand
>how the armed forces should be controlled, of course, but that is not
>the point.  One more time, Mitch.

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.

Do you really think that this stuff means much to the average voter?
I doubt it.  It's all the bushman has so I guess he's going to use it.




---
===============================================================================
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
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: At last, a conservative comic strip!
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:27:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <BuC4wA.Gqo.2@cs.cmu.edu> msm@mse.cmu.edu (Mark S McWhinney) writes:
>In article <BuBJJM.9Es@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mwbg9715@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Wayne
> Blunier) writes:
>>>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!?)
>
>Good old Dan heard this and just couldn't help but rush in to say
>something stupid too. He said that they weren't Patriot missiles, they
>were cruise missiles. (The correct answer is smart bombs.)

What the heck do you think cruise missiles are? "Smart bombs" are 
a group that is comprised of many different types of weapons, from 
gravity bombs that glide to rocket-propelled missiles. One of the 
main selling points of the cruise missile back in the late 70s
was the promise that not only would it hit the target, but you 
could tell it which window to go through. The reality has lived
up to this 70s promise.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Slick Willie strikes again
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:51:06 GMT

hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:

>In article <1992Sep12.142314.26388@news.unomaha.edu>
>   kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger) writes:
>>
>>I normally avoid pejoratives, and it once was that I always spoke of "Gov.
>>Clinton" not just "Clinton," but after seeing the Artful Dodger take his
>>own quotes and those of others and carefully replace key words to change
>>the meanings, I have come to the conclusion "Slick Willie" is accurate.
>>Yesterday I heard him say, almost verbatim, "Someone even said we need a
>>religious war.  We don't need a religious war..."  Obviously he was refer-
>>ring to Pat Buchanan because Mr. Buchanan was maligned for these lines in
>>his convention speech:
>>
>>     My friends, this election is about much more than who gets what. It is
>>  about who we are. It is about what we believe, it is about what we stand
>>  for as Americans. There is a religious war going on in our country for the
>>  soul of America. It is a cultural war, as critical to the kind of nation
>>  we will one day be -- as was the Cold War itself.
>>
>>Clearly Mr. Buchanan never said "we need a religious war."  He said "there
>>is a religious war."  No matter what you think about the fact that there
>>is or is not such a war, you must admit it's pretty slick of Clinton to
>>twist Mr. Buchanan's words as he did.

>That's exactly what he said, he just used more words.  Look at the text.

The way I see it, Clinton did twist the meaning. Pat Buchanan did not say that
conservatives need to lauch a religious war, but that, given the full scale
assault on religion and culture that the liberals have begun, that conservatives
need to join the battle. When he said "there is a religious war going on..."
he most certainly was implying that liberals had started it and were winning.
His statements encourage conservatives to engage in "battle" with the liberals,
not to start a war that doesn't already exist. There is a big difference 
between "needing" a religious war, and having to fight one - in the former
case, one is the aggressor, in the latter, one is the defender. 

-ACF

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: At last, a conservative comic strip!
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<BuBJJM.9Es@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:59:38 GMT

In article <BuBJJM.9Es@news.cso.uiuc.edu> mwbg9715@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Wayne Blunier) writes:

   >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
   >-- 

Wow! You asked for it and I guess mark told you!

Somehow, I seem to have missed the relevance of the response, particularly
since the media *did* report the incident. Repeatedly. (Hell, it has even
developed into a major issue for the Repubs, like Fambly Values..)

I wonder who calls the shots on this liberal media conspiracy anyway, to
decide when to poke the New Right in the eye or not, on any particular day.

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..
Revered, now I live on. O did I do no evil, I wonder ever.


Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5272 alt.rush-limbaugh:4586
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: TV Times for southern California
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:42:59 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <d2tn!hq.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
->The new TV guide lists Rush's show as being on the following times and 
->channels:
>
->12 midnight, channel 29 KMPH Visalia
->12:30 am, channel 12 KCOY Santa Maria
->1:00 am, channel 13 KCOP Los Angeles

 1am in LA. That puts Rush right up against the nightly rebroadcast of
Larry King. The dynamic duo from radio face off against each other on TV.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: At last, a conservative comic strip!
Date: 14 Sep 92 19:58:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <1992Sep10.135937.13235@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>>I thought that BC strip was a hoot.  I guess its humor is beyond those
>>people who can't comprehend the words "free exercise".
>
>The strip dealt with the phrase "separation of church and state" which
>is not found in the Constitution.  What the strip doesn't say is that
>the phrase is found in the Federalist Papers (I think) which describes
>the thought processes of the Framers in creating the Constitution and
>the Bill of Rights.

The phrase is found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of Baptist
clergy.  It is a private interpretation by Jefferson, who was not present
for the ratification of either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

>The "separation of church and state" was clearly the intent of the
>Framers when they wrote the establishment clause of the First
>Amendment.

Original intent?  The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law ..."
How does original intent get us from the federal Congress to prayers at
high school commencements?

-- 
Tom Albrecht
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: At last, a conservative comic strip!
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:23:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep11.134714.17798@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>In article <BuDJ3t.M9G@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
>    tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych) writes:
>
>>BTW, don't you find it interesting that the cruise missle (as well as the
>> F117,
>>M1/2/3 series, Patriot) were all begun or first bought under the 'weak on
>>defence' Carter administration?
>>
>>Tom Zych   tzj20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>>
>
>I had some former coworkers say that while Carter was making speeches,
>saying "we are not designing anti-satellite weapons", they were busily
>working on a black program, where they were designing anti-satellite
>weapons.

And who was it that ensured that funding for these weapons would be continued?
Who fought for the Patriot missile when almost everyone else in Congress 
wanted to axe it out of the budget - Dan Quayle, of course.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: das9674@usl.edu (Stephenson Daniel A)
Subject: Re: Military service...
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Distribution: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 05:43:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.124650.9004@webo.dg.com> lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage) writes:
>
>|> >Since military service is apparently so relevant and so admired by all
>|> >Dittoheads everywhere, would anyone care to comment on the Rush Limbaugh's
>|> >own record on this issue? Did Rush see combat in Vietnam? How did he serve
>|> >his country? Was he every 1A? 4F? ROTC? What then?
>|> 
>|> 	I seem to recall that he was 4F, courtesy of a pylenidal (sp?) cyst.
 
What is *that*? 

>Pilonidal.  Also, I believe, a bum knee.

Something he'd rather not discuss, I presume?  :-/

--
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: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: SPEECH: Dan Quayle on "Restoring Basic Values"
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 15 Sep 92 13:38:07 CDT

In article <1992Sep14.235554.11618@u.washington.edu> sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.220421.23380@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>>In article <5284@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>
>>> 
>>> Let me share with you a few statistics on the difference between black
>>> poverty in particular in the 1960's and now.
>>> 	- In 1967, 68% of black families were headed by married couples.
>>> In 1991, only 48% of black families were headed by both a husband and
>>> wife.
>>> 	- In 1965, the illegitimacy rate among black families was 28%.
>>> In 1989, 65% -- two-thirds -- of all black children were born to
>>> never-married mothers.
>>
>>In the Summer 1968 there were Riots in Black areas all oiver the country; 
>>Detriot, Chicago, New York, LA, etc.  
>>
>
>>There nis no doubt that children are being neglected in inner cities at a
>>tragic rate, crime, unemployment, racism, drugs, (in LA the LAPD was a
>>problem) and yes the present welfare system is to complicated and does not
>>provide enough insentive.  
>>
>>But to assert that these problems would all get better if Blacks started to
>>get married is alittle silly.  To assert that the decline in the nuclear
>>family structure is a cause  has not been as of yet backed up.
>
>But the great thing about this view is that it absolves the
>executive branch from doing anything about the problems.
>And it allows the electorate to believe that these 
>problems are "their" problems, whoever "they" might be,
>other than "not us".
>
>I always find this babble from Our Boy to be especially
>amusing in light of the fact that conservatives are
>fond of bashing liberals for approaching social ills
>with "quick fix" solutions.
>

 I've just changed my view on this subject and will propose the 
feminist logic "get out of my womb, big brother government" when
it comes to solving poverty and crime etc in the inner city. GOvernment
will no longer help in any way. Government will get out of their
life too. 

Thanks for the idea Eric.
>-- 
>| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
>| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
>


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: That HUD thing (Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Sep 92 13:04:38 CDT


In article <pqukqm0@fido.asd.sgi.com>, cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C J Silverio) writes:
> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
> |alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> |	   Rush may not be interested in running for office, but he's
> |   sure interested in becoming a Republican party insider. There's big
> |   rewards available for someone who can be a daily 3 hour commercial
> |   for the Republican party.
> 
> |There are?  Care to enumerate these rewards?  
> 
> You ask *this* stupid question of the political party 
> that raped HUD?  

Shhhh...  It's not politically correct to question Republicans
benefiting from fraud and abuse...

-- 
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: larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel)
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Organization: San Diego State University, College of Sciences
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:52:24 GMT

Tom Perigrin (tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu) wrote:
: In article <BD.92Sep11075850@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
: 
: >                            But, if each time I wrote the checks I had
: >$9,999.99 in the bank, then I would actually owe the bank a dime, not
: >$100,000!
: >
: >Hope this helps clear up some of the confusion.
: >-- 
: >   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
: 
: There you go again Brice,  injecting facts and logic into a nice
: chunk of propaganda.
: 
: Rush is obviously a bright fella...  what I can't understand is;
: 
: 1)  how can a bright fella like Rush not see the simple truth of this  OR
: 2)  is he purposefully twisting facts for political gain


Huh?  What is the difference between saying that they owe a dime and
saying they owe $100,000?  Each of these is as much "simple truth" or
"twisting facts" as the other.  Each one could have happened.  Most
likely neither one did.  Putting a "spin" on something doesn't
necessarily mean "twisting facts."  I don't see Rush twisting the
facts any more (or less) than Brice.

: >
: >No-one in the House bank wrote "bad checks".

Interesting that "bad check" is in quotes.  Maybe that's because it's
not a well-defined term.  Clearly there are a lot of people who think
that they DID write "bad checks."  If I write a check and the funds
aren't there in my account to cover it but the bank pays the check
anyway, then somebody else's money at the bank is going to pay for it
(directly or indirectly), which is essentially the case at the House
bank.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "bad check" or "rubber check" is slang for
what banks call "NSF" checks, or "Non-Sufficient Funds" checks, which
are checks written against an account which doesn't have sufficent funds
to pay the check.  That's what happened in Congress.  If the bank diverts
money from some someplace else, that doesn't change the fact that the
money wasn't in the account in the first place.

My bank has paid a check or two that was for a little more than the
money I had in there.  They gave me a negative balance and paid the
check, so I guess it didn't really "bounce," but my bank sure thought
it was a "bad check".

Larry
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Far Right's New "Bill of Rights"
Date: 11 Sep 92 19:19:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Sep8.025941.6896@afterlife.ncsc.mil> acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:
>In article <1992Sep7.111021.2245@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>May I ask how forfeiture laws have come to be blamed on conservatives?
>>This law was passed by the Congress in it's on-going effort to fight
>>the drug war.  It had broad bipartisan support.  The Supreme Court
>>upheld its legality.  Does *everything* have to be pinned on one side or
>>the other?  Can't we do anything as a country anymore?
>
>Not with a President who blames _every_ problem the country has
>on Congressional Democrats. 
>
>Harry Truman's Desk Sign: "The buck stops here."
>George Bush's Desk Sign: "The buck stops at the building with the dome."

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."

>-- 
>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

===============================================================================

William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================

"Socialism has a bad name in America, and no amount of wishful thinking on the 
part of the left is going change that in our lifetimes....The words Economic
Democracy are an adequate and effective replacement."

						   Derek Shearer - Advisor to Bill Clinton

===============================================================================

"That was the ultimate heckle."
	
		Then presidential candidate Al Gore to a heckler who suggested that he
		would make a good vice-president - 1988

===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re:  Clinton, draft dodger.  YUP!
Organization: SPS
Distribution: usa, na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 00:44:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.193748.20669@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep3.164143.4987@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
|> 
|> >This is the standard liberal justification for their double standard 
|> >regarding Quayle and Clinton service records.
|> >
|> >It's never made sense to me.  To be in favor of an action does *NOT* mean 
|> >that you have to do it.  For example,  I want all murderers put in prison 
|> >but I don't want to be a policeman.
|> 
|> Do you know the difference between Dan Quayle and Jane Fonda?
|> 
|> Jane Fonda had the courage of her convictions to go to Viet Nam.

And sit in an anti-arcraft turret (or whatever the correct terminology is) 
and point it at American planes.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
From: mark.stevens@spacebbs.com (Mark Stevens) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush - The TV Show
Date: 13 Sep 92 07:33:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: mark.stevens@spacebbs.com (Mark Stevens) 

To: bowman@infonode.ingr.com (Tony Bowman)

TB>What is the name of this show, I can't find it anywhere and have missed any
TB>reference here and on the radio program.

Just scan Monday's TV guide very carefully.  You should see an entry
for Rush's show with a 'debut' in the description.  Be sure to look
very late at night.  In the San Francisco area he is on a strong
station but on at 2am.  Looks like I'll have to tape it.  If the
show gets strong ratings (almost impossible at that time) it will be
moved up to a better time.
---
 . DeLuxe./386 1.25 #42 .
From: snyder3338@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: T.V. show title?
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:54:11 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Quick question:  What is Rush calling his new T.V. show???

Jeff Snyder

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh