HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
}Computer programmers built the USENET and at the same time initiated this
}completely bogus and self-serving idea that the illiterate use of the
}language was okay, and even irrelevant. Of course, if they wrote their
}programs with the same attitude, the programs would not work. These
}same people belch at the dinner table, wear their jeans with the top half
}of their butt cracks showing, and bath infrequently. And then they complain
}they can't get dates. Sadly, they usually end up marrying insane women who
}are looking for a way out of the half-way house.

I have three words for you, John: argumentum ad hominum.

Actually, you were probably kidding, weren't you?  I mean, I'd hate to offend
you, REALLY!

(grin)

-- 
   _/\_   sgparker@eos.ncsu.edu
  /|  |\  Scott Graham Parkerson
  \|  |/  Sophomore, Computer Science
   -\/-   North Carolina State University 
  
"...it's just as permanent as painting in the Iron Age."
                                        -Shriekback, "Fish Below the Ice"

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4838 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5383
From: joem@orbit.cts.com (Joe Mann)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Wanted: satellite downlink schedule for Rush's TV show
Keywords: Satellite, C-Band, Downlink, Multimedia, Schedule
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:11:13 GMT
Reply-To: joem@orbit.UUCP (Joe Mann)
Organization: Orbit TimeSharing [orb], Minneapolis, Mn.

I'm looking forward to Rush's TV show which starts in Minneapolis
tonite, at 1:00 AM!  Normal air time for this market is 12:30, which
is too late for many of us working types.

I understand that Multimedia is distributing the program, and it may
be possible to get the show at a more reasonable time, via Satellite
Dish.

I'm looking for a downlink schedule for Rush's program.
If anyone is aware of this information, it would be greatly apreciated
if you would send it out via the net.  Thanks in advance!  Joe.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:47:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.153704.19033@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep9.120715.16501@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>>In a startling change of events this morning, my newspaper actually
>>>had a (short) paragraph on a recent Clinton faux pas.  
>>>
>>>Seems at a campaign stop he railed on the big spending we were doing
>>>on military weapons systems and brought up the Patriot which "can fly
>>>through doors and down chimineys."  Hmmmm.  Probably just an honest
>>>mistake from somebody who doesn't know a good offense from a bad
>>>defense...
>>>
>
>>And then Quayle screwed up in criticizing Clinton...saying that
>>it was "cruise" missiles that could perform these feats...
>
>>Gerald
>
>The sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missile *can* do these things.  It
>was one of our foremost "smart" weapons.  Do you remember the reporters
>in Baghdad commenting on the Tomahawk coming down the street and 
>"making a right at the intersection."?  These missiles can be accurate
>to within a few feet.
>

There is a difference between making a right at the intersection 
and going down a chimney...do you have the video of a cruise missile
dropping down a chimney shute...I think not.

>Does an anti-Quayle bias come through loud and clear on this one?  If
>they had given him the benefit of the doubt, they could have researched
>it a little more.  But since they are so quick to criticize him, they
>look a little foolish themselves.
>

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.

Gerald
From: cessna@kn5f.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Taylor Evert)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: TV station list so far
Date: 14 Sep 1992 22:26:11 GMT
Organization: Loral Space Information Systems

In article <1992Sep13.191133.42953@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 
attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> Please send any updates, changes, etc. to

TX  Houston      KHOU    11   CBS   M-F   11:30PM

Mark T. Evert
Friendswood, TX

My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 07:11:51 GMT

For some reason left out of this discussion so far:
What makes Quayle's draft record less agreeable to some people than Clinton's
is that it seems to be in conflict with his stated opinions about the war.

Quayle was/is (?) apparently supportive of the Vietnam War and its purposes.
He did not enlist to do the work of fighting that war.  This is not in any
way intended to demean the service of those in the National Guard.  (And why
is it I should have to even state this?)  But someone who genuinely supported
the war, who was young and able-bodied, might have wanted to make himself 
available to serve directly in it.

Clinton did not support the Vietnam War and stated so.  He didn't enlist.
And, apparently, went out of his way to lesson his chance of being drafted.

You may feel Clinton's choice was less honorable, distanced as it was from
any kind of military service.  But the concept of "service to country" is
hazy at best (do teachers serve their country?  do farmers?  do scholars?),
and whether you think Clinton's motivation was "I oppose this war" or was
"I don't want to get shot", his actions at least point to his stated 
conviction (oppose the war).  Quayle's don't.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4813 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3731
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 22:01:52 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep12.184941.349@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jason K. Schechner) writes:
->	Yeah, but the fact of the matter is that the bulk of his
->listeners DON'T have that half a brain.  Almost all (of not all) of
->the people who have access to this network are at least reasonably
->well educated and can see the obvious sarcasm in Rush's statement.
->HOWEVER, the majority of the American people aren't quite that lucky.
->(and by lucky I mean a)lucky enough to be intelligent and b)lucky
->enough to have gone to college).  
->	They hear that and it goes through their minds that he really
->will tell them what to think.  Try and remember what the smarter kids
->back in your high school were called.  Right.  The smart kids, in
->general were ridiculed just for being smart.  Intelligenece,
->unfortunately, has gotten a bad rap in American schools in the past
->decade or two.  Turn that around and this country will be back on it's
->way to the top again.

 Maybe that explains why Rush wrote a book which tries to unravel the
mysteries of his show. 
 I have never seen more brainwashing performed on a group of people than
I saw this weekend when Al Gore spoke to a group a minds full of mush at
CU.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4832 alt.news-media:1313 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3739
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:32:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:
>jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>>It's gotten so bad that
>>the jokes are preceived as fact.  
>
>Examples?

I said that CNN mistakenly said that it was Quayle that initially made
the mistake about the Patriot missile (rather than the mistake about the
cruise missile). [Which reminds me did you ever hear the joke about the
SCUD missile ... ] They apologized for it later.

I will say that we can expect to see the season premiere of Murphy Brown
to volley a few shots at Dan. But remember it's only a TV show.
<Right.>
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Moderate Willie
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 4 Sep 92 22:05:09 PDT
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

Pardon me if anyone else has said or submitted this (it's possible The Great
One has said it) but I haven't caught up on my article reading here.  Has it
occurred to anyone else that Slick Willie could be considered Moderate
compared to Hilary Clinton?

Jennifer
****************************************************************
Babs: "Me so bunny!"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Bill Clinton in '92.  "Support Your Willie!"
Vote Bill Clinton on Nov. 3rd.  Carter's daughter was ugly too!
Disclaimer: I'm Republican.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gogo: "Vo-do-dee-oh!"
****************************************************************

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Why Can't Republicans or Programmers Spell?
Organization: ILS
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:40:33 GMT

In article <6272@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John
Locke) writes:
> 
> RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:
> 
> > i try not to point out spelling mistakes.  however, i just can't control
> > myself when someone who IS pointing out spelling mistakes makes one himself.
> > 
> > "merit" has one "r".  to make "merit" plural, we add an "s"; we do not also
> > double the "r"'s.
> 
> Computer programmers built the USENET and at the same time initiated this
> completely bogus and self-serving idea that the illiterate use of the
> language was okay, and even irrelevant. Of course, if they wrote their
> programs with the same attitude, the programs would not work. These
> same people belch at the dinner table, wear their jeans with the top half
> of their butt cracks showing, and bath infrequently. And then they complain
> they can't get dates. Sadly, they usually end up marrying insane women who
> are looking for a way out of the half-way house.

These exposed butt crack, belching, bad smelling, bad spelling, staying
home beating off nerds that you make fun of created all the high tech
computer soft ware that the government has to spend millions of tax payers
dollars repeating again and again very slowly at Naval Postgraduate school
so our clean cut men in uniform might be able to get about 1% of it.



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: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:37:04 GMT

golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.120715.16501@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>In a startling change of events this morning, my newspaper actually
>>had a (short) paragraph on a recent Clinton faux pas.  
>>
>>Seems at a campaign stop he railed on the big spending we were doing
>>on military weapons systems and brought up the Patriot which "can fly
>>through doors and down chimineys."  Hmmmm.  Probably just an honest
>>mistake from somebody who doesn't know a good offense from a bad
>>defense...
>>

>And then Quayle screwed up in criticizing Clinton...saying that
>it was "cruise" missiles that could perform these feats...

>Gerald

The sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missile *can* do these things.  It
was one of our foremost "smart" weapons.  Do you remember the reporters
in Baghdad commenting on the Tomahawk coming down the street and 
"making a right at the intersection."?  These missiles can be accurate
to within a few feet.

Does an anti-Quayle bias come through loud and clear on this one?  If
they had given him the benefit of the doubt, they could have researched
it a little more.  But since they are so quick to criticize him, they
look a little foolish themselves.

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: SPS
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 01:58:37 GMT

In article <nate.554@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
|> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
|> >nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
|> >|> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
|> >|> >Clinton has been preparing for and running for president since he was 18.
|>  
|> >|>     Can somebody clue me in about why it's supposed to be a bad thing that 
|> >|> Clinton knew what he wanted to do since he was 18? I've known what I wanted 
|> >|> to do since I was 16, and I think it helped me to make the sacrifices it 
|> >|> took to get where I wanted. 
|> >|> 
|> >|>     I'd hate to think that having a long-term career objective would count 
|> >|> against *me* in a job interview somewhere, especially if that objective was 
|> >|> to get the exact job that I was interviewing for...
|>  
|> >The founders of this country had the goal of citizen-politicians.  Ordinary
|> >citizens would volunteer a small number of years in public service.
|> 
|>     That sounds like a nice idyllic situation. It might have worked in 1776, 
|> but I doubt that we'll see anything like that in the near future.
|> 
|> >The idea of career politicians (Clinton has never held a private-sector job)
|> >was offensive to them.
|> 
|> >Something about: before you make rules about how people are required to behave
|> >you should have some experience living under these rules.
|> 
|>     Hmmm, is it possible to experience living under a rule *before* it's 
|> been made? That's a good trick.
|> 
Didn't word it too well but you probably understood.  How about:  "Before you make 
laws ordering around the common folk you should have experienced living as a
common person under laws (passed by those preceding you)."?

Noone minds people having career objectives as teenagers.  Many people hate the
idea of career politicians.  For example,  there is quite a strong term
limitation movement.

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

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 11:45:44 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>In article <1992Sep6.235132.28300@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:

>@ For some reason left out of this discussion so far:
>@ What makes Quayle's draft record less agreeable to some people than Clinton's
>@ is that it seems to be in conflict with his stated opinions about the war.

>@ Quayle was/is (?) apparently supportive of the Vietnam War and its purposes.
>@ He did not enlist to do the work of fighting that war.  This is not in any
>@ way intended to demean the service of those in the National Guard.  (And why
>@ is it I should have to even state this?)  But someone who genuinely supported
>@ the war, who was young and able-bodied, might have wanted to make himself 
>@ available to serve directly in it.

>>While this is an almost plausible reason for differentiating the two,
>>(and I notice that we have moved quickly onto a another reason besides
>>the family influence thing) it does present a bit of a logical reach.
>>Because one supports a war, or any government policy for that matter, 
>>it doesn't obligate some kind of personal sacrifice for that cause.

>	This is from someone who presumably professes to believe in
>individual responsibility.

>>Are you really implying that anyone who supports a war should go down
>>and enlist immediately?  Kind of a "put up or shut up" thing?  Should

>	That's right. If one does not fight, one should be willing to
>finance any others who may be willing to fight the war for one. And
>considering that the typical flag-waving conservative _hates_
>taxation, even _that_ option would seem to be out.

>>we then assume that if somebody were against the war that they must
>>have been out marching in peace rallies whenever possible?  I haven't
>>noticed any clips of Clinton doing that.

>	Maybe he just wasn't into that kind of activism.

>	And are we going to be told now that those who opposed the war
>were all traitors and Commies?

Every once in a while, a post like this comes along and I don't know
what to do with it.  Maybe some veteran net posters can email or post
advice.  It doesn't really seam to be worth my time to try and argue
with somebody who is so far afield.  Yet, should obviously flawed and
self-righteous drivel like this go unchallenged?  Most of the time I
leave them alone, expecting most others on the net to see them as they 
are--without any comment from me.
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mxa2677@usl.edu (Axelrod Michael)
Subject: Re: Right-wingers attack immigrant backers
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 10:45:23 GMT

In article <1954@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.195038.14973@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>->In article <germany-extremistsU2SC330pe@clarinet.com>,
>->clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI) writes:
>->> 
>->> 	BONN, Germany (UPI) -- Right-wingers and neo-Nazis stoned a group of
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>->> people and driving the pro-immigrant group away before again attacking a
>->> hostel for asylum seekers, officials said Saturday.

> Thanks for the posting. I have known about these people for a long time.
>Its why I will never go to Germany and always caution people who are going 
>their about it. It has nothing to do with Modern American Conservatives.
>Nazis are not Conservative. Nazi stands for Nationalist Socialist.
>They need a large government/buissness relationship to spread their terror.
>We Free Market Conservatives want small government and worldwide free mar-
>kets.
>
> Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

The original post says Right-wingers and neo-Nazis.
The original post does not say Right-wingers == neo-Nazis.
But thank you Steve for your opinions that are yours and your alone.



--
Michael J. Axelrod
mikey@usl.edu
--
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4755 alt.news-media:1302 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3692
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 14 Sep 92 16:54:36 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Sep13.045615.465@eng.ufl.edu> jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
>The ridicule of Dan Quale has gone far enough!  

Dan-o is still in office, so the ridicule has not gone far enough.

>It's gotten so bad that
>the jokes are preceived as fact.  

Examples?

>People actually believe that Quale
>is a stupid moron.  Didn't someone call him a functioning illiterate on
>this net?  

I don't remember.  There is frequent speculation about the
source, either social or organic, of Dannikins behavior.
Or maybe someone was indulging in Limbaugh-like sarcasm, and
was not meant to be taken seriously.

>He is human.  He makes mistakes just like you and me.  

He is the Vice-President of the world's only remaining 
superpower, not recording secretary of the Ft. Wayne Rotary.
His blunders take on a greater significance because of
his position (why do we need to keep repeating this?)

>The ongoing jokes about Dan have become as bothersome as those jokes
>about that lady who fell and couldn't get up.

We respectfully disagree.  The purpose of a.f.d-q is to give
an outlet for those who find him wildly amusing; most of
the posts contribute to the depleted pool of political
humor in the USA.  If you don't find it funny, that's
OK, go read another group (I tried to remove this thread
from the rush.limbaugh group, but was defeated).

If you want a more "serious" discussion of the Dandroid's
career and political philosophy, there are various other
groups you can read.  
-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4822 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5375
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:45:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

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.  In fact, what we have
/is the press saying things like, "It's about time somebody did something
/about the obvious welfare problems we have."

Supporting point:
Why don't we hear Leslie criticize that "liberals are using the 'fair tax'
issue to divide and create a hatred of the upper class by the middle class"?
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4550 alt.news-media:1237 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3561 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5249
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 11 Sep 92 01:17:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>> Rush Limbaugh seems to be the only popular media
>> soul who has decided to become rich doing it.
>
>There's a sucker born every minute.

All 13 million of us in the 520 stations around the country.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4776 alt.activism.d:3078 alt.politics.clinton:5338