HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 15:00:43 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: A journalist speaks on media bias
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1928@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.150945.14421@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>Pardon me, but if I hear any more snivelling from "conservatives" about
>>the so-called "liberal bias" of the media, I think I'll have to puke.  
>
> This is great. Someone asks for proof of liberal bias. We start pro-
>viding it. Then we are accused of whining. This reminds me of the liberal
>argument that the press is pro-military.
>
> See how a liberal can create a no win situation for conservatives. We
>dont have good enough examples. What you have examples, you must be whin-
>ing. 

Sorry to disappoint you, Steve, but I ain't no "liberal", and I ain't no
"conservative" as defined here or in RL's show.  I don't think those labels
adequately describe most people's views.  As an example: I'd be happy to
vote for Bush if he weren't such a ----head about the environment.  So,
I'm a flaming liberal econazi envrionmental earth first terrorist because
I disagree with Bush on this?  I think not.  I am a MODERATE environmentalist.
I believe you can cut timber without clearcuts.  There's plenty of wood out
there.  I'm dead set against the "conservatives" in our government who seem
hell bent to pay some business to obliterate forests.  A true conservative
view on that issue would have to agree.  Our forest service LOSES MONEY to
subsidize a few big mills.

Getting back to the point, you'll note I never denied there's bias in the
media.  So what?  You'll never get rid of it, no matter what.  What I seem
to hear from "conservatives" is that they want it replaced with their own
bias.  Fine, go DO IT.  Quit whining.  Let the market work (hint: it 
already is).

I will concede one point:  I unfairly singled out "conservatives" when I
should have hacked on "liberals" who deny bias exists in the media, as well.
Credit my own bias against snivelling with that oversight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
                   ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 18:56:06 GMT

jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>If Leslie Stall can state without compunction on the Evening News that
>"conservatives frequently use the welfare issue to divide and create
>a hatred of the lower class by the middle class," it *should* stand to 
>reason that Clinton is doing that same thing now.

    Well, I still dunno. Leslie Stall's statement doesn't seem like much 
of a logical starting point for any line of "reasoning".

    The closest I can work this out, it looks like Andy's subject line 
is actually a parody of current media psycho-babble rather than an attempt 
at a serious discussion which is fine by me. Once you get on the topic 
of ranting and raving liberals I really don't have much to say anyway. They 
don't represent me or my viewpoint (but they make great material for 
political satire).

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4534 talk.politics.misc:44656
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Why Can't Republicans or Programmers Spell?
Date: 16 Sep 92 03:30:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <cortez.716606906@milton> cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>
>>In article <6272@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>>>
>>>What does this have to do with Republicans? Simple: Republicans make lousy
>>>programmers. How do you like them apples?
>>>
>
>>Here in Washington, RepubliCons grow wonderful apples!
>
>Ugh! Perhaps some down-home-type Republicans still grow wonderful apples, but
>those RepubliCons and their megafarms of waxy-on-the-outside, bland-as-wood-
>pulp on the inside, so-called "apples" can keep their goddamn 99 cents a pound
>as far as I'm concerned! For all you non-Washingtonians subjected to these
>crimes against the spirit of Johnny Appleseed, please accept my humblest
>apologies.

Well, if you're one of them thar fools who eat Washington apples instead of 
the real thing - Gravenstein apples grown in Sebastopol, CA - then you 
deserve what you get. Harummph! To think that some Washingtonian would 
dare compare his puny attempts at an apple to the fruit that God intended!
After all, it was a Gravenstein that Eve picked in the Garden of Eden!
-- 
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.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4481 talk.politics.misc:44476
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:20:36 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

 
> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>
> And since the S & L crisis was basically caused by the
> collapse of the oil industry, _if_ he hadn't been

And demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
 
>        It was caused by
>1) Fraud
>2) The collapse of the real-estate bubble
 
>        Oil industry had little to do with it.

Both wrong, gentlemen; the S&L crisis was caused by changes in the tax
lasw relating to real estate development. Congress did it. Fraud accounted
for less than 1 percent, even by the MAXIMUM estimates. 

Real estate was a great tax shelter, so lots of people invested in real
estate. Congress, wanting to squeeze the last nickel out of the economy
re-wrote the tax laws, making real estate a much more risky, much LESS
profitable investment. When the risk went up and the profit went down, it
became difficult to sell real estate (commercial real estate, now; nothing
to do with single family homes) and so the price plummetted. S&Ls which
had bet on good returns in lending to commercial real estate were left
holding worthless real estate that they couldn't sell. Many S&Ls suffered. 

Congress panicked. They demanded increased regulation and oversight for
S&L's, which until that time had been guaranteed (by the $100,000 deposit
insurance) never to lose money. Many S&Ls then invested in "high-yield" or
:junk" bonds. Along comes congress again, forcing the S&Ls all to sell
their junk bonds at the same time. With junk bonds a glut on the market,
the price dropped, and many people got the mistaken notion that "junk"
bonds really WERE junk. Lo and behold, most of those "high yield" bonds
have been good, and have paid off; junk bonds have been the best possible
investments for the past two years running. 

Anyhow, that's the sordid story of how Congress caused the S&L
catastrophe. Needless to say, you won't hear it from your congresscritter!

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4812 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3730
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:57:46 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep12.170742.35@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 

->Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that Limbaugh is kidding
->when he says that. Listen to him for a bit and you'll realize that he
->is very much an entertainer. By the way, I was also listening to that
->show, and I heard it too, but I recognize humour.

 You RUSH bashers could start portraying yourself as more Rush-Literate, if
you just bought his book. Then, you would even be helping him get rich.
Something he actually wants to do.
 For those of you from Rio Linda, I also mean read it to.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Cabinet (humorous suggestions)
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:12:45 GMT

eyc@acpub.duke.edu  writes:

[...stuff deleted]

> General -- can't remember the source). So anyone out there please fill
> in the following blanks (humor please) with regards to who you think will
> be in a Clinton cabinet (and other executive office positions).
> 
> Secretary of State

Robert Redford.  The Democrats love Hollywood celebrities and have them up
as experts before Congress all the time.  This position requires someone
who is good at apologizing for the US' actions, and Redford certainly has
the qualifications.

> Secretary of Defense

No need.  The Cold War is over, so the military will be disbanded.

> Secretary of Treasury

Robert Byrd.  If there is a way to bring pork to the entire US, Byrd is the
one to figure it out.

> Attorney General

I don't care what anyone says, Hillary's got her name on this job.

> Secretary of the Interior

Probably Gore's good friend Paul Ehrlich (_The People Bomb_), though I would
not rule out Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund; he is
in close with Gore as well.

> Secretary of Health and Human Services

Faye Wattleton (sp?) (head of Planned Parenthood).  Abortion is our highest
priority, so it should be reflected at the highest level.  Besides, she knows
all about prevention and would organize condom distributions to the elemen-
tary schools.

> Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Jesse Jackson.  If he doesn't get the job, he'll raise hell, so Clinton will
give him this job just to shut him up.

> Secretary of Labor

No one will fill the job at first.  It would be insensitive to have an em-
ployed person fill a job representing most of the country, which is out of
work.  Of course once Clinton gets the country going, someone will be picked.

> Secretary of Education

The Commissioner of NYC public schools (I can't recall the name).  If there
is a liberal policy on education, this guy's all for it--especially explicit
sex ed with a heavy emphasis on gay rights.  He's too liberal for Bill, I
must admit, but Hillary will insist.

> Chief of Staff

That depends on who donates the most this year.  That's how he does it in
Arkansas.

> National Security Advisor

Our only threats are the lack of education, health care, etc., so no one
need fill this.

> Joint Chief of Staff (military)

Another unnecessary job.

> "Drug Czar"

Timothy Leary (remember "tune in, turn on, and drop out?").  As all liberals
know, you can't comment on anything unless you've experienced it yourself,
and Dr. Leary even inhaled.

--
Kurt R. Krueger
kkrueger@unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Wage decline hits white-collar work force
Organization: ILS
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:02:38 GMT

In article <whitecollarU2S61255pe@clarinet.com>, clarinews@clarinet.com
(JEFF BATER, UPI Business Writer) writes:
> 
> 	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The decline in wages of America's labor force
> spread to white-collar and college-educated workers in the late 1980s,
> while the pay of top executives soared during the decade, a Labor Day
> weekend report by a think tank said Sunday.
> 	In ``The State of Working America, 1992-93,'' the Economic Policy
> Institute said wages were falling for most American workers even before
> the recession.
> 	The EPI report, published every two years, said white-collar wages
> fell 3.5 percent between 1987 and 1991, while wages of blue-collar
> workers tumbled 7.6 percent. Wages of college-educated workers fell 3.1
> percent.
> 	``From 1979 to 1991, the real hourly wage of most workers severely
> eroded,'' the report said.
> 	``The recent fall-off in the wages of white-collar and college-
> educated workers occurred prior to the early 1990s recession and can be
> expected to continue even after the economy recovers, especially given
> the expected slow rate of future growth,'' the EPI report said.
> 	``The wage decline among college-educated workers is due to a slower
> growth in employer demand,'' it said.
> 	It said other reasons why the wages of most American workers are
> falling are a lower minimum wage, increased import competition, fewer
> and weaker unions, and an employment shift to low-wage industries.
> 	In a separate study released last week, the Commerce Department said
> that because of the recession, median household income fell 3.5 percent
> between 1990 and 1991.
> 	The department, in a survey of 60,000 households, said median
> household income dropped to $30,126 and, altogether, has fallen 5.1
> percent since 1989.
> 	While the common worker may be having a more difficult time making
> ends meet, the elite of the nation's business world -- company executives
> -- fared better in their pay envelopes during the last decade.
> 	``The 1980s was a very prosperous decade for top U.S. executives,''
> the EPI said in its report. ``In stark contrast to the declining real
> wages of average workers, the pay of chief executive officers of major
> U.S. companies grew by 19 percent from 1979 to 1989.''
> 	The authors of the report found that during the recession, white-
> collar unemployment rose more than blue-collar unemployment.
> 
> 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4441 alt.politics.clinton:4593 alt.news-media:1183
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:28:46 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep9.174759.26916@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>If were talking about accuracy here...it involves much more 
>sophisticated guidance to be able for a Patriot to intercept a
>ballistic missile than for a cruise missile to follow a mapped
>out course.  If anyone was closer to the truth, Clinton was 
>rather than Quayle.

 Many Conservatives cautioned against using the Patriot Missile Defense System
during the Iraq Conflict. The reason was that this system was not designed to
do the job it was designated to do. The original design for missile defense was
killed in congress and they then had to retrofit the patriot to try to defend
local incoming missiles. Its job was to explode somewhere in front of the in-
coming missile and hope that shrapnel would destroy the missle warhead. The
cruise misslie on the other hand uses a terrain map and is able to accurately
follow the terrain for many miles. The patriots guidance is supplied by ground
based computer software. The cruise missle is able to follow a course by com-
paring current ground terrain to internal mapped terrain.
 Its like comparing a centrally planned statist system to an independent non-
statist system. The cruise missile contains much more internal sophistication
than the brain dead patriot missile.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mmarx@Csli.Stanford.EDU (Matthew Marx)
Subject: Re: is there a FAQ list?
Organization: Stanford University CSLI
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 01:14:04 GMT

In <1992Sep8.005539.16560@Csli.Stanford.EDU> I write:

>I've been reading this group for a couple weeks now and have been
>looking for what EIB means and what stations in the Bay Area carry
>Rush's show. Is there a FAQ list somewhere with this information?

I'm sure that was good for a laugh. The FAQ list appeared exactly four
postings before mine! (No, I didn't see it first :)


-- 
Matt Marx     mmarx@csli.stanford.edu           
No News (is bad news)
No mail for mmarx (is worse)

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Hyperbole about Clarence Thomas
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 02:22:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep16.013402.14803@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.030213.25361@cco.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>|> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
>|> 
>|> >The way you stated it,  it sounds like Thomas thinks it's ok to beat confessions
>|> >out of prisoners. 
>|> 
>|> It wouldn't surprize me if he did.  The senate judiciary committee certainly
>|> didn't desist from browbeating in the Anita Hill proceedings.
>
>You thought the Senate browbeat Anita?  Amazing.  My reaction was that they were exceedingly
>tender & compassionate to a perjurer.  And to the Democrat's staff who suborned perjury.

????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ummmm..... no. Not going to bother. Obviously a completely lost cause.

Now I know why I voted for Patty Murray for Senator.

>-- 
>Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

Hiss. Snarl. Gnash.

>It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.clinton
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Bush reactive?
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 1992 23:28:58 GMT

In article <machman.715464078@milton> machman@milton.u.washington.edu (The Machman) writes:
>cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>>I'm surprised Gore is not blaming the Bush administration for their
>>lack of action regarding global warming--  if Gore were president,
>>there would be no global warming, thus giving us cooler oceans,
>>which would have resulted in Hurricane Andrew being "a gentle
>>late summer shower."

>ridiculous.  either you're scientifically illiterate, or a republican,
>or both.  i believe if Gore were vice-president, we'd be trying to do 
>something about reducing the risk of global warming, at least not 
>ignoring it like the Bush administration has been.

"Trying to do something"?  Do you approve of that if the "something"
is establishing a global eco-fascist state?  If it is to take away your right
to use your property?  If it is to expend 50% of your income on 
"developing" the 3rd world?  If it is eliminating all internal combustion
engines in the next 25 years?  If it is defining a desire to live a
technologically advanced civilized lifestyle as a mental illness?  If 
arguing against environmentalist pseudoscience is defined as a mental illness?
If the government forces you to use primitive tools and methods to do
your job?  Is this REALLY what you want?  If you don't Gore understands,
he realizes it is insane to oppose him, so he'll send you to a "re-education"
program to set you straight.

Far from ignoring environmentalist doomsaying, Bush has been paying the
chicken-littles far too much heed (eg. the "Clean Air Bill" and blessing
the "Earth Summit").

--Brian


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 21:37:28 GMT

best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jason K. Schechner) writes:
>>      Please excuse the cynicism, but how else do you expect a politician
>>to get elected nowadays?  I was heavily involved in a city council ...

>Sorry about what happened to your Mom not getting elected.  I agree with
>you about the state of politics.  Perhaps this is the historical norm
>but I hope that there are a few statesmen, such as our Founders, left
>out there.  The problem is getting them elected.

    Hey, the Founders are still around, but their biggest problem is 
*not* getting elected. They need to work on getting exhumed and resurrected 
first. (Since this is the Rush Limbaugh group I feel compelled to note  
that there seems to be a statistical link between being a founding father 
and being dead; sounds like a conspiracy to me... at the very least it's a 
powerful argument against founding anything...)

    Seriously, Mike, I'm surprised at the glum, cynical tone of your 
comment. As far as statemen go I'd say that the Republicans have more 
than their share. I have a lot of respect for Jack Kemp and Bill Bennett 
although I tend to disagree with them on most things. I'm sure that a lot 
of people will be outraged at this, but I *do not* think that Dan Quayle 
is a great statesman, and it boggles my mind that some people can seriously 
contemplate Quayle at the head of the Republican ticket in '96 while hot 
prospects like Kemp and Bennett wait in the wings.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Steve Buffum)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Real Reagan Record
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:47:53 GMT
Organization: Just Some Guy


	This is a light-hearted poke, which is the reason for the absolutely
vicious cutting of the original article:

In article <1992Sep2.155008.14345@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>Have any of you read the  August 31 issue of NATIONAL REVIEW.  I found 
>this quite amazing.  On pages 25-62 is found the cover story, THE REAL 
>REGAN RECORD.  Many (a dozen or so) authors have each taken one plank 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of the conventional liberal tale of how Ronny ruined America, and 
>smashed it to pieces.

	This may have been a typographical error on Mr. Krueger's part, but
there are those of us who believe its uncanny accuracy is a Freudian slip
at best...

	;-)

--
Steve Buffum           | "Emerson!" -- Isaac Asimov
swb@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 00:54:26 GMT

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>Wow.  We've reached a level of analogy and comparison that simply
>takes my breath away.

>You know, there was a little discussion in sci.military not too long
>ago that suggested that you could build basement cruisemissiles
>with, say, a small airplane with lots of bombs, a GPS, and some
>electronics to hook said GPS to the flight controls.  Really
>funny about that internal sophistication, you know.

>On the other hand, a ballistic missile defense, even one as first-generation
>as the Patriot, is analogous to hitting a bullet with a bullet.  You can
>try that in your backyard, if you like.  Just get a friend to come along.
>Kevlar vests are optional.

This is pretty irrelevant, but I hate to see people misguided...
A cruise missile has the most sophisticated guidance system we know
how to make.  Whether you can do that in your garage after reading a 
post from the net is debatable.  A Patriot missile has no guidance
system on-board.  It's controlled by a phased-array radar from the ground.
The only thing it needs is a steering mechanism and a receiver.

And the Patriot was not designed to be a ballistic missile defense.  It
was intended only to be an aircraft defense.  Extensive software mods
were made prior to and during the war to make it work against the SCUD.
When we got there, it was being given a 60% chance of intercepting a
SCUD--which is why they fired two Patriots at every one.

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire