HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shapiro@trade.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Is Bush Conservative?  Ask Michael Kinsley
Date: 12 Aug 92 20:13:33 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.


In article <1684174DF.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com>, JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes...

>The point is that overall, considering his action on
>the quota bill, raising taxes, and bending over for Tom Foley, it is
>difficult to see conservative intentions.  I think he may be a clear
>vessel which takes the color of whatever gets put into him.

For me the issue is not Bush since as you say, he seems to bend in the wind to
whatever stress is applied to him.

I for one am focusing my energies on electing a conservative congress. As such,
it would probably be neccessary to keep Bush because I believe that he would
get in their way a lot less than would anyone else. 

At least with a conservative congress Bush would lean conservative rather than
what he has currently been doing.

Regards,
Steve.

/*********************************************************************
*                               *                                    *
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed   *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and do not neccessarily *
* Specializing in: HP/SUN/UNIX  * reflect those of my clients,       *
* DEC/VAX/VMS/ULTRIX, IBM PC    * employers, employees, children,    *
* C, FORTRAN, PASCAL, PL/1      * parents, spouse or even myself!    *
*                               *                                    *
**********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org                             *
* FidoNet 1:101/440 (508) 664-6354                                   *
* The Contract Professional BBS, North Reading, MA                   *
*********************************************************************/
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4380 alt.rush-limbaugh:3557
From: mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Reasons for the Gulf War
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:21:12 GMT
Organization: UB

ECL4JN2@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU (Jack Newsbaum) writes:

>Rush is surprisingly rather clueless about the real cause of the Gulf
>War, although he does recognize that the brutality involved in the
>overrunning of Kuwait had nothing to do with it. There never was any
>threat to the supply of oil coming from the Mideast, even if Saddam
>Hussein would have managed to conquer Saudi Arabia as well. Indeed,
>Saddam would have been quite pleased to sell the West all of the oil
>that it wanted.

	That can't be known for certain.  What if Saddam decided to use
differential pricing to favor enemies of the US and its allies?

>The real cause of the War was the use to which Saddam Hussein was
>putting the vast sums of money he was receiving from the sale of oil --
>to nuclear and chemical weapons buildup programs. It was these programs
>which were perceived to be a dangerous threat to American interests and
>to the interests of America's allies, namely Israel and Saudi Arabia.

	My only real quibble here is saying that the nuclear and chemical
threats were THE cause of the war.  Most wars have multiple causes, and I 
think this one is no exception.  Clearly it was a valid reason for going to
war, but not the only reason.

-- 
Matt Bernhardt
University of Buffalo             THIS SPACE FOR RENT.
mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: Improve your life through double speak, a Rush primer
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:35:36 GMT

In article <BswB7J.J03@acsu.buffalo.edu> mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt) writes:
>	Not exactly.  He also mentioned large segments of the population 
>that are not included in the calculations of individual incomes: the self
>employed, government workers, retirees etc.  This makes individual income
>an unreliable statistic, hence his use of family incomes, which are more
>reliably calculated.

	I doubt that self employed people make up "a large precentage",
and the government is well known for paying less then the private sector.
talking about family income ignores the point that many familes are working
2 or 3 jobs to get that extra 5%, hardly a big plus in my book.




-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: EIB Special Report
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:32:36 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 25403@midway.uchicago.edu, clmn@quads.uchicago.edu (Bill Coleman) writes:
>In article <Bstqp8.HK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>>>>>A guy called in today and questioned him about his lies and non-truths.
>>>>>He really laid it in there about the EIB BUILDING too.  BTW, there is no
>>>>>EIB BUILDING!                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>    I'm crushed. Now ain't that a bitch? Next thing you know somebody will 
>>>come along and try to tell me there isn't any Santa Claus either...
>>>
>>>    Hey, I *do* take him seriously, but Mitch has got me wondering. Could 
>>>it be that the "Golden Microphone" isn't really made of gold? Could it be 
>>>that the prestigious "Attila the Hun" chair is actually just a seat? All my 
>>>castles in the air are tumbling down, and the day isn't even half over. 
>>>(Don't ya hate it when that happens?)
>>I break in with a SPECIAL REPORT:  An further investigation into the
>>lies being perpetrated by Rush has uncovered these new startling and
>>distrurbing facts.  Please have your children leave the room.  This is a
>>family values newsgroup. 
>>There is no Rush Museum.  AND PLEASE SIT DOWN FOR THIS ONE, PLEASE:
>>Rush occasionally DOES use both halves of his brain.
>Now, really, doesn't this beat endless rants about abortion, Bill Clinton,
>taxes, media bias, and all the other posts which divert us from the big
>picture questions such as:  Who is Melvin Snerdley?  When does Kiki come
>back from maternity leave?  What forces Rush to use the other side of his
>brain???

Actually, it's a nice change.  I kind of enjoy this type of satire.  It
certainly is much better than the cruel brand that we all hear on the
radio.

---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
Keywords: Buchanan Rush Limbaugh
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:16:38 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: world,usa,na
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug19.141934.14090@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>This is tough talk coming from Pat "My knees were so bad I could not
>serve in the military, but now I'm an avid jogger" Buchanan.
>

 Im shocked Russ. You have attacked the messanger without addressing the 
message. Pat is not the nominated one. Clinton is.
 It seems that Clintons only defense now is to keep attacking those nasty
people who call him names, without addressing the real issues that these
so-called name callers are bringing up. This technique can work in the
short run, but wont work in the long run. The list of dodged issues keeps
growing longer. "When Johnny comes marching home again ......"

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Balanced Budget Amendment
Distribution: usa, na
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 13 Aug 92 00:53:54 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <36744@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator) writes:
> In article <1992Aug10.201723.28048@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
> >The proposed balanced budget amendment will work about as well as
> >Graham-Rudmann.   I.E., not at all.    There is no penalty clause.
> >How about the following idea;
>
> We will never know if Gramm-Rudman-Hollings (aside:  Ever find it
> interesting that now that GRH is a "failure," Hollings' name is rarely
> associated with this bipartisan bill) would work or not because Bush
> wimped and raised taxes.  Had he not raised taxes, Congress would've
> been forced to accept sweeping across-the-board real cuts to close the
> gap.  And now, like most legislation it passes, Congress has virtually
> exempted itself from GRH?
>

In two consecutive sentences, you claim congress would be forced to accept
real cuts and then claim they exempted themselves from the law (GRH).

Reality:  Bush vetoed the 1990 budget (not the "agreement") passed by
congress 3 TIMES, and 3 times the government went into GRH sequester.
Just long enough for congress to extend the GRH deadlines out just a
few weeks more...

> And speaking of real cuts, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing a 4%
> spending increase called a "cut" because the original proposal called
> for an 8% increase.
>

Me, too.

> Agitator
>   #->

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 04:23:14 GMT

pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:

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

>Might it be that Buchanan's speech was full of attacks against
>homosexuals, feminists, illegal immigrants, people of color, women
>in battle... You name it... Personal attacks on Hilary Clinton... I

It is precisely because Pat Buchanan went on the attack that it was a
great speech. Buchanan was never more right than when he said that there
is a cultural and religious war being waged in this nation. People these
days do not wish to hear such unpleasant statements that offend the ears,
and as a result dismiss them as "hateful" or "divisive." Dismissing the
issues that so divide the two parties and this nation as trivial or overblown
will never diminish their importance. Once again, too much of this nation
wishes to close their eyes, and hopes that somehow these divisions will
simply fade away. They will not. History has taught that problems that are
ignored only grow worse. Buchanan did much last night to alert people as
to what is really going on in America in 1992.

-ACF
.
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Tax Increases - A Little Truth
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:02:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <168427072.JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com> JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com writes:
>
>However, they also noted that Clinton himself pushed for and got several
>sales tax increases.  Furthermore, Arkansas' tax system is regressive in
>their terms and that the heaviest burden is carried by middle and low
>income families.
>

The reason that Clinton had to go for sales taxes is that, under the Arkansas
Constitution, taxes can only be raised by a 3/4 vote in a referendum. The sales 
however, is an exception. I'm not going to argue that the sales tax 
isn't a horribly unfair tax, but, when your looking at

a) a Constitutionally required balanced budget
and
b) the effective impossibility of raising other taxes

I can't blame Clinton for going the sales tax route. 

And, one thing I'm sure Rush Limbaugh will never point
out - Arkansas ranks as one of the lowest tax states,
even after twelve years under Clinton.
-- 
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
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
Keywords: Buchanan Rush Limbaugh
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:09:56 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,na
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26



(Speech delivered by Patrick Buchanan at the Republican convention
in Houston on Monday, August 17, 1992.)

> Mr. Clinton, however, has a different agenda.  

> At its top is unrestricted abortion on demand.

Which, of course, is a lie.  (Not that it is suprising 
that Buchanan would resort to lying.)

-- 
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: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Bush's Marital Problems
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:56:35 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

I'm going to be unable to listen for the next few days but the Jennifer
Fitzgerald news broke yesterday, apparently in the New York Post?  Anyway,
I would be interested in hearing from those folks who are listening how
Limbaugh treats this one, as compared to "Slick Willie's Philandering."

Is he giving it equal time, or any time?
---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Media Bias?????
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: usa
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:40:13 CDT


In dpage@ra (Doug Page) writes:

> Perhaps Barbara Bush hit the nail on the head the best the other night while
> being interviewed by PBS/NBC coverage when the question of media bias came up.
> Mrs. Bush asked the interviewer where the press was defending the President
> during the Democrat Convention.  The interview was left momentarily speechless
> because she knew that Mrs. Bush was right.

Actually I thought Judy was more taken aback that Barbara would make such
an unfounded allegation.  Instead of talking about the issues, Barbara 
attacks the reporter for asking questions.  Judy is then put in the
position of defending PBS coverage (allowing Barbara to change the subject
and not answer tought questions) or go on with the interview (leaving the
allegation of biased coveraged unanswered).  Judy tried to remain professional
and continue the interview and at least one viewer was left with the impression
that the unfounded allegation of biased reporting is true.

It's a classic Republican trick: when the questions get tough, attack the 
interviewer.  And some people are gullible enough to fall for it.

-- 
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: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: Libertarians on Rush Limbaugh
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:48:08 GMT




In article <1992Aug12.175023.26026@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> cb926@cleveland.Freenet
.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan) writes:
>
>I just heard today that the grand master let on a conservative
>libertarian to ask, "What's so bad about Libertarianism?"
>The grand master responded that always talk about legalizing
>drugs. The caller gave his justification for legalizing drugs
>and then was not allowed to answer Rush's speal on how society
>must set standards, how personal happiness is evil, and how
>society would fall apart if govt. legalized drugs. Maybe he
>could follow his philosophy of self-reliance and find that
>its not because drugs are illegal that he doesn't do drugs
>but it's because he has learned to respect his own body and
>his own health. Legalization doesn't equal condonement.
>Naturally, like pro-choicers, the caller was censored.
>At times like this, a mildly entertaining show turns into
>a fundamentalist, puritanical, maniacal spot to slam
>self-reliance and individualism.
>
>-- Ed


If you don't like it, don't listen.  It's HIS show.  In response to your 
previous post:  He may be making an ass out of himself, but he is also making 
himself rich!
-- 
           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
             Win Twins!
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4745 alt.rush-limbaugh:3838
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's broken promise
Date: 22 Aug 92 00:23:37 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <92234.161728ATERO@ASUACAD.BITNET> ATERO@ASUACAD.BITNET writes:
>Has anyone heard a satisfactory explanation from Clinton as to why he went back
>on his promise not to run for president if he was elected governor?
>
>I heard this on a local talk show while the host was interviewing a Clinton
>campaign worker.  His job was to cover the convention and point out lies told
>by the republicans. A caller asked him about it and he conceded it was true
>but changed the subject when the caller sought an explanation.

Clinton wanted to be President and he changed his mind. As a die-hard 
Bush supporter, I'd love to whack Clinton over the head with this, but 
I think it falls into the category of "well, yeah, but you knew he was
lying anyway." 
-- 
John Switzer               | "Don't mess with me, man!
                           | I'm a higher mammal!"
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | 
jrs@netcom.com             | 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: A fine opporitunity for flaming liberal flameage
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:37:01 GMT

Bill Dostalik writes:
>Conservatives are in favor of a choice of public *and* private schools.
>A critical distinction, in light of the general failure of so many of
>the public schools.  The best way to improve the public schools is to
>force them to compete with the private ones.

  Many public schools have failed because the tax base that used to pay
for the schools has eroded away and the schools do not have enough money
to pay for a decent education.  And taking more money away from them will
solve the problem?

>
>Of course, the NEA is just trying to protect their monopoly just as any
>monopolizing corporation would.  How dare you allow the poor choose to go to a
>high quality private school?

  Then why don't you and some like-minded individuals create a fund that will
allow the poor to attend private schools?

>                                They won't learn how to use condoms!  They may
>even overhear a prayer!  I would guess most inner city parents are more
>concerned about their children learning how to stay off drugs than they are
>worried about the off-chance they may actually learn how to pray.  Repeat
>after me:  A crucifix in urine is art, a crucifix in the classroom is un-
>constitutional.

  It is up to *parents* to teach children to pray, *not* the schools.
And what prayer should the schools teach?  What if you had prayer in
schools and a large group of Shi'ite Muslim refugees from Iraq moved
in, got themselves elected to the school board, and decreed that all
students *will* pray to Mecca five times a day?  Is that acceptable
to you?  How about a school choice system, where they could set up
a private Islamic school, which *your* tax dollars would help pay for?

  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, n'est-ce pas?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4502 alt.rush-limbaugh:3626
From: mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Improve your life through double speak, a Rush primer
Date: 14 Aug 92 21:37:18 GMT
Organization: UB

alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:

>In article <Bsy0po.M42@acsu.buffalo.edu> mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt) writes:

>>	Can you cite figures?  Your argument is valid only if [...]

>	Great! Rush twists statistics to suit his purposes, I point out
>some fairly obvious problems with his logic, and now I'm being called
>apon to prove my figures. 

	And I'm pointing out "some fairly obvious problems" with your logic.

                          >Rush didn't offer any of the proof that you
>want from me, but you'll follow him without question. It must be true,
>because Rush said it!

	Ah yes, because I am critiquing your argument, it necessarily follows
that I agree with everything Rush says, and that I "follow him without 
question".  A non sequitur if I ever saw one.

>	Now *thats* a dittohead, folks, I'll leave it to the reader 
>to figure out why the term is so often prepended with "mindless".

	A classical example of an ad hominem attack.  My reasoning has now
obviously been refuted due to this brilliant and penetrating insult of my 
intellect.
-- 
Matt Bernhardt
University of Buffalo             THIS SPACE FOR RENT.
mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% for health
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:46:00 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 18082@athena.cs.uga.edu, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>In article <nate.462@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    How about a capital gains cut for long term investment (leaving the 
>>current rate for short term investments)? 
>If my memory serves me, Japan and Germany have NO capital gains tax.

Actually, Japan has a highly punitive capital gains tax on real estate.
That's why most only buy a home once and then pass it on to children.
Selling a house for profit in Japan is highly unprofitable.

---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh