HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: raj@netcom.com (Roger Lee)
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:19:25 GMT

In <rdippold.721181889@qualcom> rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

>>>Good idea - I beat you to it!! rmgroups for alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and
>>>alt.politics.bush have been sent out as well as a newgroup for
>>>alt.president.clinton. I forgot alt.rush-limbaugh - you do the honors
>>>for that one.

>>Ah it warms my heart to see the self-declared defenders of the First 
>>Amendment so willing and ready to destroy the free speech rights of 
>>anyone they don't agree with. A certain prelude to what will happen 

>What do you expect?  Liberals and free speech go together like oil and
>water (respectively).

Oh. Remind me to send my donation to the Jesse Helms library for the 
politically correct. 
-- 
 /=================================================\
// raj@netcom.com      Missed it by >< That much   \================\
||                                                                  \\
|| How do YOU spell SHAME?  V-O-T-I-N-G- -F-O-R- -Q-U-A-Y-L-E       ||
||                                                                  ||
|| Come one, Come ALL! Come join me in the Church of Appliantology  ||
\\                   L. Ron Hoover                                  //
 \==================================================================/
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: dpa
Subject: Re: Network projections
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:28:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.140008.20359@osf.org>, Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes:
|> In article <1992Nov9.181221.4220@crd.ge.com> joseph,
|> joseph@c2a.crd.ge.com writes:
|> >  How a sales tax is any less regressive than property taxes is
|> beyond
|> >me.  Yes, a sales tax is broad based - it will catch all those
|> >homeless people who don't pay any property taxes, and all those
|> >people who live in rented apartments.  But how does that make it
|> >progressive ?
|> >
|> Arnie Arneson, who was the dem running for Gov in NH, wanted to
|> enact an income tax.  Traditionally, NH voters have made office
|> seekers take "the Pledge" that they would not enact an income tax. 
|> Arneson, and the income tax, lost by about 57 - 43 (I think). 
|> 
|> Sales taxes are regressive.  They fall heavily on the poor.  That
|> was one of the criticsms leveled at Bill Clinton when he raised the
|> sales tax to cover his education reforms in Arkansas.  (I believe
|> that this included a tax on food, which is a heavy penalty for the
|> lower economic stratum.)  The Arkansas constitution allows the
|> legislature to raise taxes (income) only with the consent of 75% of
|> the legislators.  Clinton pushed for the education reform and was
|> forced to up the sales tax to pay for it.  It was a problematic
|> solution.  Was the cure worse than the disease?  Maybe someone from
|> Arkansas can answer that.  

You are assuming that there was a cure.  "Frontline" (on PBS) reviewed
Clinton's so-called education reforms and found that there were only two
results: 1) Arkansas teachers got pay raises, and 2) Clinton had "reforms"
that he bragged about at every governors' conference, convention, etc. that
he got a chance to - and he made sure he had chances.  The unanimous
conclusion of the "experts" that they interviewed (from both inside and
outside of Arkansas) was that there was no real change in the level of
Arkansas' educational system as a result of Clinton's reforms.  The people of
Arkansas are still saying "Thank God for Mississippi!".

***  The opinions are mine (maybe), and do not necessarily represent those  ***
***  of my employer.                                                        ***
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 20:48:49 GMT
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Subject: Re: November 3, the day Rush dies!
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Keywords: 

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>wd208cs@opie.bgsu.edu writes:
>>Well, it's election day. We are going to see a great change in this 
>>country, with Clinton landsliding and all.
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^
>    That's a very colorful and somewhat appropriate turn of phrase.

I've heard just that term used in news reports this morning (11/4, the
morning after).  Heard the words ``electoral landslide'' in reports on
several different stations, so I assume those words were in the wire
report on the election.

I thought the word ``landslide'' was being stretched in the last few
elections, but using it for someone who didn't even get 50% of the vote,
is, well....

What do you mean by ``colorful,'' Nathan?

Geoff

-- 
Geoff Allen          \  Don't blame me, I voted for George Bush.
uunet!pmafire!geoff   \
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:46:05 CST


In article <2101@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> In article <1992Nov6.151933.18739@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
> ->In article <2098@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> ->|>  The Landslide Media Myth is also exposed when you examine what happened
> ->|> at the state level senate and house races. The republicans did exceptionally
> ->|> well. A total of 10 states had a shift in the ruling party of either the
> ->|> house or senate. All shifts went to the republicans.
> ->
> ->That's a carefully selected statistic.  In Massachusetts, the (non-ruling)
> ->Republicans in Senate had a serious reversal.  Now William Weld, who is a
> ->popular Republican governor facing a Democratic legislature, has a problem:
> ->his Senate is 4 short of override-proof.  This will keep his attention
> ->firmly at home for two years.
> 
>  More election results are in. The democrats did win control of the state
> legislatures in Vermont but, the total change so far is 11 to republican
> and 4 to democrats. That is a solid overall victory at the state level
> for the Republican Party. One state legislature (Florida Senate) is still
> undecided as of my data (USA Today).

I don't have my paper handy, but I'm sure that the Dems gained a State
Governor (the Dems already have most of the Governors).

>   Republicans Gain Majority Control of the Following
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  State Senate                  State Congress
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Alaska (dem lost 1)         Idaho (solid majority)
>  Arizona (rep gain 5)        Iowa (rep gain 6)
>  Idaho (now veto proof)      Kansas (rep gain 4)
>  Illinois (rep gain 3)       Michigan (rep gain 6)
>  Nevada (rep gain 1)         Monatana (rep gain 14)
>  North Dakota (dem lose 3)
> 
>   Democrats Gain Majority Control of the Following
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  State Senate                  State Congress
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  South Dakota (dem gain 3)   Vermont (dem gain 16)
>  Vermont (dem gain 1)
>  Washington (dem gain 4)

How 'bout results in other states.  In MN, the Dems gained in
both the State House & Senate.

-- 
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: 00066033@ysub.ysu.edu
Subject: Re: Limbaugh's Falseness Revealed
Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:35:10 GMT

In article <BxKn1J.Ip1@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
 
>
>jvogel@math.rutgers.edu (jeff vogel) writes:
>
>>Fascinating article in the New York Times today. It seems that our dear,
>>dear idol, Rush Limbaugh, not long before his radio show went on the
>>air, hosted a New York radio talk show with a highly liberal slant.
>
>Actually, Reagan was once a liberal democrat.  But then, of course, he
>grew out of it.
>
I also heard that Rush was once an elderly bag lady that roamed the streets
of Hope Arkanas.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Music on the Radio Show
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: us
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 20:01:49 GMT

In article <92315.231124BJGLEAS@auvm.american.edu> bj gleason <BJGLEAS@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>Does anybody know the name of the music that is played at the beginning of
>the radio show?
>
>thanks...
>
>bj


Yes. the song is called "Ohio" by the Pretenders.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8249 alt.rush-limbaugh:9329 alt.politics.bush:13619 talk.bizarre:37433 alt.politics.clinton:16601
From: curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Liberals want to remove Admendment #10? (was Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 11 Nov 1992 21:00:42 GMT
Organization: CS Dept. Snakepit - Do Not Feed.
NNTP-Posting-Host: cobra.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov11.191913.9088@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>In article <1drdpfINN6od@agate.berkeley.edu> curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.140406.2361@novell.com> bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>>>
>>>Conversely, if my state takes away my whiffle balls, I'd like the U.S. to be
>>>there to stick up for me.
>>
>>And I, sir, would like a big fast Bugatti and hot apple pie a la mode
>>every morning with my coffee.
>
>Where we seem to disagree is that you think that only the Feds should
>have this negative claim placed on its actions and I think that the
>states should also be restricted.

Hey, I think they should be too.  And I'd like that Bugatti, too.
The only problem is, I don't have a Bugatti.

>>Unfortunately this "right to privacy," while a beautiful
>>invention, an invention of wonderful creativity and originality,
>>a real work-of-art invention if I may say so myself, is also an
>>entirely bogus invention, and thus its inventors feel free to
>>take it or leave it as the feeling moves them.
>
>Oh jeez, I'll probably regret this because this is a real time waster,
>but what is your life like if you don't have a right to privacy?

Jesus.

What we have here, son, is a failure to communicate.

There are two ways of constitutionally limiting government:

	(1). Establish a set of inviolable "rights" and say
	"okay, boys, you can do whatever so long's you don't
	mess with these here rights."

This is the modern, liberal approach.

	(2). Establish a set of limited "powers" beyond which
	the government cannot go.

This is the Constitutional approach.

If the government doesn't have the power to do anything that
invades my privacy, why do I need a "right to privacy"?

What the Tenth Amendment says is, "Looky-here, boys, we know the
Constitution says this, but we, well, we just think it's so gosh-
darned important that we ought to say it again."

Unfortunately they did not reckon with the thick skulls of
modern _Homo sapiens._

>what would be the point?  You seem to think that the state can screw
>you over in any case - it would apply only to the Feds.

Things were kind of touchy back in the 1780s and if the people
who did the Constitution had tried to impose anything on the
states they would have been flat on their asses in no time at
all.

Since then the states have gotten weaker but governments have
gotten bigger, so nobody's done anything about this weird
historical legacy.

Dr. Bloor is on Line 2 and would like a chat with you.
Let me put him on.

c
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
From: rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:21:02 GMT

raj@netcom.com (Roger Lee) writes:
>In <rdippold.721181889@qualcom> rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>>What do you expect?  Liberals and free speech go together like oil and
>>water (respectively).

>Oh. Remind me to send my donation to the Jesse Helms library for the 
>politically correct. 

Talk about a non-sequitur.  Are you actually stupid enough to "reason"
that saying liberals fight free speech implies that conservatives
don't?  Helms and Wildmon and their ilk have a long history.  Now
we're getting the shaft from both sides. 
-- 
I named my dog Herpes.  He won't heel.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,misc.test,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:08:58 GMT

In article <sulkanen.720975889@xanth>, sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65) writes:
> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
> 
> >Since George is on his way out, we will no longer need alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
> >alt.rush-limbaugh, or alt.politics.bush.  I will be sending out the
> >rmgroups for these three groups.  Also, since Clinton is now president,
> >I will create alt.president.clinton.  Since the volume should be large,
> >we'll hold on to alt.politics.clinton for a while.
> 
> electronic book-burning...

Hey, we finally agree!  How can you possibly propose removing the Rush
groups?  I'll be honest and admit I think he's an ass, but that doesn't
give me the right to silence him.  The truth will come out; all we have
to do is allow him to speak.  Perhaps we should remove all the alt.music
groups who haven't won Grammys recently; same goes for the abortion
groups and the "gun nuts".  And of course don't forget the Christians and
the gays/lesbians.  I agree -- this is censorship.  We don't need it.

Rush Limbaugh is the last rush of putrid air from the decaying corpse
of Reaganomics (apologies to the sensitive out there :-) ).  Let's not
put him in the freezer.  The open air will be best in the long run.

OK folks, we won an election.  Good job.  All the talk from Bush and Perot
about joining in the process goes DOUBLE for us.  We didn't win this
by excluding people.  Sober up and let's get to work.

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Rush is such a bad loser
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:04:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.084709.1381@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.191041.971@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>>In article 40551@sdcc12.ucsd.edu, pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>>>Do you think Bush will write his memoirs from prison ?
>>
>>I think as a gesture of class, President Clinton should pardon Bush.
>
>  I have predicted around here that Bush will be indicted.  If that

<<mindless conspiracy battle deleted>>

By the way, just what laws did Reagan and Bush break? Don't tell me they
"destroyed the Constitution," by give me specifics on what they will be 
indicted for.

>  And the BCCI scandal in Atlanta is starting to bubble over, thanks to
>  60 Minutes.  With an incoming administration that they don't have to
>  fear, the Justice Dept. career boys may be more inclined to sing in
>  front of a grand jury.

And maybe, just maybe, the truth will come out about Jimmy Carter's 
DIRECT and PERSONAL ties to BCCI. Haven't heard much about those, nor about
the moneys which came his way. And maybe we'll get an indictment or two 
for perjury in the Anita Hill hearings, and learn which Democratic staffer
leaked the FBI report about Anita Hill. And maybe we'll get an indictment
of criminal negligence against Lawrence Walsh and his staff for leaving 
a briefcase of top secret reports, including Reagan's personal testimony,
unguarded for several minutes at an airport curb. 

But since the Democrats are in charge now, I doubt it.
-- 
John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
                           | Support the coup!
CompuServe: 74076,1250     |
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   |
From: yeomans@stonehenge.ced.berkeley.edu (Gary Todd Yeomans)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Decline of America
Date: 11 Nov 1992 06:03:03 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: stonehenge.ced.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov11.021352.3815@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harry Tuttle) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> I guess one of my biggest problems with some (not all) of Rush's l
|> fans is that they are mindless followers.  I mean, it has to be a sure
|> sign of the decline of America when somebody will pay money to buy
|> 
|> Rush's book.... Oh well, there's no accounting for taste, I guess.  All the same, I
|> really hate pseudo-intellectuals.  Especially when they don't realize
|> that they are being had.
 
Before you begin slamming that which you pretend not to be, why don't you actually incite
us with at least one substantive issue that has not been properly addressed.  Granted, Dr. Rush
runs an issue-based show and wrote an issue-based book, but at least he tried to put forth some
views on issues and his conservative take on them.  By taking broad strokes at Rush and his 
"mindless followers"  without naming even one "pseudo-intellectual" position you have become what
you presumably hope to denounce.  When I think of "pseudo-intellectual broad strokes" the first
group that comes to mind are the liberals and the wanna-be-intellectuals that take bleeding heart
swipes at issues just because they are trendy.  Face it, it's trendy to support the environment.  
It's trendy to protect animal rights. It's trendy to bash capitalism.  It's easy to be a liberal, 
but it takes guts these days to be a conservative, because the minute you take a conservative
stand on an issue, you're going to be bombarded with insults to your intelligence and questions
about why you feel the way you do.  Spout off a liberal view and you get nods as if they were facts when they are only opinions.  (Believe me, I'm in Berkeley the capital of trendy viewpoints.)  If
 you feel so slighted by the attention given to The Book, why don't you give us something to really
 think about.  To the contrary of your title, I think the appearance and subsequent success of his
 book is clearly a sign of life in this country.  It signals a move toward sensibility and
 consideration of the issues that surround us in a balanced way.  If you would seek to take the
 proliferation of knowledge away from the "every day Joe", then you, Sir, are part of the elitist
 pseudo-intellectual left that wants to keep the power and the knowledge out of the hands of the
 population at large and within the priveleged circles of the "competent" few.


Yours in Rush, 

Todd "I'm gonna git you sucka" Yeomans
yeomans@ced.berkeley.edu {Gary Todd Yeomans}  
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: The VERY silly party
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 20:30:10 GMT


Well, in analysing the election, we see that the state of california,
with a high number of silly voters went silly as expected. Georgia went
for the silly party, perhaps due to the high immigration of people
with silly-leaning tendencies. And, New Hampshire, which has had
in the past a huge number of people who are not in the least bit
silly went completely gaga.

As we can see, this election guarantees for us about four years
of very silly government.

In california, feinstein (silly) defeated seymour of the sensible
party. in ohio, martin hoke, sensible, eeked out a victory over
mary rose oakar, silly. in illinois, ms. carol mosely braun (very silly)
defeated richard williamson, sensible.

And, in the national election, we had in addition to bush, sensible, and
clinton, silly, an independent, VERY silly candidate, mr. elsie phimbim-
limbimbinbinbinbinphtangphatangolay biscuitbarrell perot.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 12:34:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.163731.24598@uts.cc.wayne.edu> tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson) writes:
>Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov4.190713.18501@henson.cc.wwu.edu> brian h. harper,
>>n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu writes:
>>>Yes, a mandate to not have Bush, but using this logic, the majority (57%)
>>>voted against Clinton. That, too is a mandate. Course it won't matter
>>>because he won. Does it feel good to have a Pres that the majority of
>>voters
>>>don't want? 
>
>>You do realise how counterproductive, pointless, and divisive
>>this discussion is, don't you? We have work to do dammit!
>>Help us get it done.
>
While I admire your desire to "get it done" you seem to be neglecting the
fact that very few of us agree on how this should happen. It's all very
well to issue stirring calls for brotherhood and self-sacrifice but you
can't seriously expect people to automatically fall into lock-step with
President Clinton just because he won a divisive and rather shallow, IMO,
victory. I think Mr. Stevenson's argument is anything but pointless.
It's shows just how much consensus Mr. Clinton will have to acheive 
before he can get his programs rolling.

It's as simple as this; If Clinton proposes legislation I agree with I
will support him. The *last* thing I am going to do is lock arms with
my fellow Americans and start singing "If I Had a Hammer"....I don't 
want to put words in your mouth Dr. but you seem to be advocating some
sort of brainless Clinton honeymoon. After the last 4 years I, and many
other voters, will simply not tolerate anymore of this "politics as usual".
I intend to do my utmost to insure that Clinton remains a "moderate".

Matt Marchese      

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: andrew@aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu (CHIHUAHUA CHARLIE)
Subject: Democrats in Office...
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:27:00 GMT
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Oklahoma - University Computing Services

Fellow Citizens,
	The Democrats are in for a very large fall.  Their party
will recess into oblivion by the next election eve.  My reason
for thinking this: right now there are plenty of problems
Democrats across the country have vowed to try to fix.  Clinton
ran on a platform of fixing the problems of the society.  The
Democrats will be unable to fix these problems despite the fact
that they will control the executive and legislative branches
of government.  People will sweep them out of office faster
than they did Bush, for the Democrats raised hopes so high,
that even they cannot meet their high goal.
	Believe in yourself to do the job... not government.
Tired of the homeless problem?  Donate time to the local shel-
ter or Habitat for Humanity.  Tired of education problems?
Teach your children at home.  Tired of losing money?  Educate
yourself and find a job-- better yet make a job!

Andrew Bloczynski
Student Application Analyst
OU

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh