HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 13 Nov 92 06:38:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <1992Nov12.182618.3419@news.vanderbilt.edu> rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:

>In article <grendel.721584279@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>>
>>I don't know who or when you're referring to, but the court hasn't been in the
>>hip pocket of the liberals since Warren Burger, and that was quite a bit before
>>I was born.

>   This is just plain wrong.  The Court may not be moving at the blinding
>speed it did during the 50's, 60's, and 70's, but it is still making decisions
>which are profoundly activist.
	
Do you not differentiate between activism and liberalism?

>   A particularly egregious example of this is Missouri v Jenkins, which was
>decided in _1990_, under the Rehnquist Court.  In that case, the Supreme
>Court determined that federal judges have a right to order certain other
>bodies to raise taxes.  (This is nothing short of usurpation.)

Maybe so.  I don't have all the facts in this matter, so I won't discuss.
But at the very most, this is an exception.  Burger and Rehnquist are
conservative, and they have presided over conservative courts.  Deny at
your peril.
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:21:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Rush's Future...
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

In alt.rush-limbaugh, marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:

> In article <1992Nov3.210542.44369@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> model03@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (John Deke) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov3.113251.1@opie.bgsu.edu>, wd208cs@opie.bgsu.edu writes:
> >> with Clinton landsliding and all. My question is:  What will happen to Rush
> >> once we have a Democratic President???  Will he spend his time bashing the
> >......
>>No future in bashing the leader of our country? Tell me, what color is the sky
>>in your world? Countless commedians, reporters, and special prosecutors have
>>........
> >Will he spend his time bashing the new president? He will criticize Clinton
> >when he feels Clinton has done something needing criticism. He will praise
> >Clinton whenever he does something worthy of praise. Because we don't really
> >.......
> I guess the same question about the color of the sky can be asked of you.
> Rush Limbaugh III PRAISING a (gasp) Democrat?  Come one.  Rush won't 
> praise Clinton.  He just won't say anything.
> 
> We'll just have 4 years of Rush finding problems (prob economic ones 
> that will point out problems in the system and blame them on Clinton and
> tell us all how this would not have happened under Bush.
> 
> At least political commedians pick on BOTH sides.  Rush is more
> like a club beating a horse that's already dead.
> 
	CLUELESS... just clueless... Rush will continue to hold
	court every day just as he always has and, in his unique
	way, he will comment on the state of the government, the
	world, the political machinations...  and if clinton pulls
	a boner, Rush will be all over him :-)  and if clinton
	surprises us, Rush will compliment him graciously...


pjm.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9212 or.politics:484
From: batie@agora.rain.com (Alan Batie)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,or.politics
Subject: Re: Homosexual marriage (was: The Difference Between Cs and Ls)
Keywords: homosexual, marriage
Date: 3 Nov 92 03:08:55 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Open Communications Forum

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>homosexuals can marry under the law (to people of the
>opposite sex) and they often do.

Yes, but I'd rather marry the person I love, and there's no good reason
why I shouldn't be able to.
-- 
Alan Batie                               \
batie@agora.rain.com                      \       Vote NO on Discrimination
+1 503 452-0960                          / \      Vote NO on 9!
45 28 59 N / 122 43 20 W / 440' MSL     /   \
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 9 Nov 92 01:02:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
$In article <1992Nov6.184705.198@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
$>> But the hypocrisy is what I'm concerned about; the hypocrisy of people who
$>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
$>"Hypocrisy"?  Oh, I can't let this one go without a pithy comment. :)
$>If these things aren't an issue, as you seem to be claiming, then why:
$>  -- did Clarence Thomas get treated the way he did?
$
$Ok, I'll take the easy one.
$
$George Bush said "Clarence Thomas was BEST qualified for the job."
$No one in political power either had the guts to say 'bullshit' or
$COULD say such.  ("Best qualified" is very subjective.  The best possible
$person in the land?  I highly doubt it.  The best minority who wasn't
$very contriversal and was most likely to hold an anti-roe viewpoint? 
$Probably.)  So instead of calling an ace an ace and a spade a spade,
$the committee attacked whatever they could to try to manufacture
$whatever they could get to say no.  Anitia Hill, well if they had
$brought it up right away, I'd bet it would have been handled alot
$less 'messy'.  The committee failed to take what Anitia said
$seriously.
$
$Either way, the post (in a political utopia) should be filled by the
$best person, reguardless of political stripe.  
$
$>Can we assume that "character doesn't matter" now, regardless of ideology?
$
$No, tis better to assume a political appointment was made to what
$(in utopia) should be a politically neutral office.  And (what could
$politition would want to stop that?) the opposing side used any tool
$they could get their hands on.
$
$Expect the Democratic choice to fair just as well.

Okay. Mario Cuomo "would be an excellent choice [for the Supreme
Court]." (MTV special) He sure seems to be the BEST qualified for the
job too. Right?
-- 
"I am Liberal from Clinton/Gore. The world as you once knew it no longer
exists. Resistance is futile. Conservatism is irrelevant. You will
become assimilated or you will be destroyed. You will all become one
with Clinton/Gore. From this day forward, you will service US."
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:47:04 GMT
 <1d986aINN42q@spool.mu.edu> <4NOV199217324454@utkvx3.utk.edu> <grendel.720981669@camelot>
Distribution: usa
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <grendel.720981669@camelot>, grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
> In <4NOV199217324454@utkvx3.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:
> 
> 
>>Jack Kemp evaded the draft. Clarence Thomas smoked pot.  Dan
>>Quayle smoked pot.  It was called the 60's.  You'd be suprised
>>who did what.  It's unrealistic to apply 90's values to then.
> 
> Your argument is so faulty I'm almost embarrassed to respond to it.
> But here goes.
> 
> If we assume that what you say is true, that in the 1960's everybody in
> America suddenly entered a time warp which rendered them not responsible
> for their actions, and that thirty some-odd years later, these things no
> longer apply, then WHY FOR BETSY'S SAKE is everyone attacking Clinton
> for what he did then?
> 
> And if we assume that you're full of it, as I do, and that people are always
> responsible for their actions no matter how much time has passed, then why
> is everyone oogling over Clinton's 60's activities as though they were some
> unprecedented acts of treason?  I repeat, Quayle evaded the draft and bought
> marijuana as well as Clinton.  I don't think either is a sign of poor charac-
> ter, and I don't see anything wrong with a president who chose not to serve
> in Vietnam and who chose to smoke marijuana (no more than I do a vice-pres).
> But the hypocrisy is what I'm concerned about; the hypocrisy of people who
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> act as though Clinton is different from any other politician in the kinds of
> decisions he makes and has made.

"Hypocrisy"?  Oh, I can't let this one go without a pithy comment. :)

If these things aren't an issue, as you seem to be claiming, then why:

  -- was John Tower raked over the coals for womanizing?
  -- did Douglas Ginsburg get savaged by the Senate for taking a toke?
You say it isn't an issue that Clinton did these things.

  -- did Robert Bork get "borked" for being conservative?
  -- did Clarence Thomas get treated the way he did?

Can we assume that "character doesn't matter" now, regardless of ideology?

Perhaps we need to redefine the word.

------

 Paul Havemann, VP          HSH Associates            (201) 838-3330 
 Internet: paul@hsh.com     Compuserve: 70410,3507    AOL: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Environment
Date: 9 Nov 1992 04:52:34 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov8.161831.3099@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>In article <1992Oct28.011204.25275@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu 
>(David O. Laro) writes:
>>Bush broke his word and Clinton lied.
>That's right.  Bush broke ONE campaign promise.  So sue him.  That's
>probably an all-time LOW for a politician!

Considering the subect of this post was the Environment, Bush said
he's pro-environment and pro-education.  Lotsa people say he was not.
The pro-stances were 'campaign promises', just like the read my lips
was.  However, the read my lips stand out because it's binary.  Taxes
either raise or they don't.   If you are going to judge if a prez lies
on binary statements like 'read my lips', Bush may be the only prez
you'll catch 'lying', cuz no elected offical in their right mind
would say something they can not back out of later.

-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: seitzler@sscvx1.ssc.gov (JOHN SEITZLER)
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:44:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.153758.2985@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Te writes...
>In article <grendel.721285610@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <6815@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

----  Stuff deleted because it should be --------

>>>Okay. Mario Cuomo "would be an excellent choice [for the Supreme
>>>Court]." (MTV special) He sure seems to be the BEST qualified for the
>>>job too. Right?
>>
>>He'd be a hell of a lot better choice than Thomas was.  The Court is supposed
>>to be balanced.  Cuomo, a liberal, would do better than Thomas to balance out
>>the ideology of the Court.
> 
>Crap.  I didn't hear any of you liberals whinning about balance when you 
>had the court in your hip pocket.  After listening to you folks cry about 
>the supreme court for the last several years I just have to smile when 
>you accuse us of whinning about the presidential election.  We have got 
>nothing on you.
> 
>Ted
> 
> 
>-- 
>            
> 
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu

Amen Ted, Right ON!!!!  Don't let these cry babies vomit this 'court should
be balanced' crud all over you.  The only reason they demand a diverse view
is because they couldn't get anything without some sort of quota.  Why? Because
the majority (Yes, that's right) the majority of the populus can't stand
the dribble they try to 'mandate' for the country.  

I think we need a new group  alt.whinning.liberals !!!!!

John Seitzler

seitzler@sscvx1.ssc.gov
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:41:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <grendel.721369415@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <YOUNG.92Nov9124823@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>
>>All this talk about whether Clarence Thomas is right or left and that
>>the court should be balanced is total nonsense.  There is no written
>>rule that demands a balance.  The president's job is to pack as much
>
>No, no written rule.  But since the Court is the one branch of government
>whose members cannot be removed from office (not without a GREAT deal of fuss)
>it is in the interest of the public to have it be as ideologically balanced
>as possible.  That was the original intent, before political parties came
>on the scene.

Wow!  Listen to this!  On the one hand, you have a liberal crying that 
the court should be balanced.  Read that, more to the left.  When the 
supreme court has been tilted to the left, it wrote law by judicial fiat, 
definitely not the original intent of the constitution.  But on the other 
hand, this liberal pleas for original intent.  Quite humorous.

Ted

-- 
            

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: broken promises
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1992 23:16:52 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <Bx7JC4.3nv@hpuerca.atl.hp.com>, krb@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Kevin Barnes) writes:
|> 
|> Rush is an entertainer! nothing more nothing less. Just like Madonna or Curly
|> or Larry or Moe!

Mostly like Curly.


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9301 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8230
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Restructuring newsgroups
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:21:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

If you folks want a more intriguing question as to the difference
between newsgroups that are practically identical (alt.rush-limbaugh,
and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh), then if you intend to restructure these
newsgroups into one, could you also do that with the Rodney King groups
(alt.rodney-king and alt.rodney.king)???
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: PLEASE READ THIS POST (Part 2 of 2)
Date: 5 Nov 1992 18:50:23 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <92310.29446.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>I completely favor "use taxes" and elimination of transportation subsidies.
>You can raise the gas tax 50c per gallon (or even $1 per gallon) as soon as
>you raise transit fares to $8 or $10 in order to eliminate THEIR subsidy.

The transit argument is that we are a mobil society and there is typicaly
a (large) distance between your living place and your work.  In the case
of someone who works for $5 hour, est takehome is $536 a month.  Using 
your $10 per trip number two trips per day is $400 a month in transportation
costs.

Raising the $5 wage to, say $10 will just push up the costs of goods and 
services.  So that is not the answer.  Ask the owners of the capitol to
move the work area close to housing?  (yea, sure  won't happen)
Give everyone bikes and tell them to peddle?  Winter makes for rough biking.

Now, let's say you go the route of OWNING the car.....fine.  Any NJ res.
care to mention the $$$ for insurance?  

>The point is this:  Everyone is subdids
>jizing almost everything.  We subsidize

Sometimes Gonv. subsidies are considered good.  Personally, the government
speding money for a high speed natl. network is a good thing.  
Others feel the spending on missiles is ok.  Public transportation
should be a local issue.  
-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Predictions for 1993
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:39:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

OK, my 1993 predictions:

The economy will continue its recovery, up to the point that Bill
"Count Taxula" Clinton gets his tax increases through.

At that point, or perhaps earlier in anticipation, the economy will
nosedive.  By the end of 1993 or early 1994, the inflation rate will be
approaching the double-digits, if not well into them, in spite of the
deepening recession.  Remember stagflation?  Prepare to get used to it
for the next four years.

-- 
Reader, suppose you were an idiot.  And suppose you  |  Mike Van Pelt
were a member of Congress.  But I repeat myself.     |  mvp@netcom.com
                -- Mark Twain                        |  mvp@hsv3.lsil.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:29:34 GMT

marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.215259.2052@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu (brian h. harper) writes:
>>>and again, the electoral college is how we elect the president; popular vote
>>>is NOT. dont blame the press for this.
>>Right. Blame our congress for not amending the constitution to eliminate the
>>electoral college and go to a popular vote with a run-off between the top 2
>>if no one wins a majority. That way the voters will have elected a pres. by
>>a majority vote. Call your congressmen and demand that they support such an
>>amendment! Get involved!

>The top 2?  So why not come out and say that we sould only have 
>Republicans and Democrats and no one with a better (or differnent idea
>even) has a chance?  Good move.  If Clinton gets such passed, Bush
>is correct....that IS slick.

This is an example of someone trying to prove a point by selective reading.
He said that the top two would be picked ONLY IF no one wins a majority.
This does not preclude third party's from running, and being one of the
top two. This year we've proven that a third party person can do very 
well. There is no reason to assume that next time one couldn't come in
second, and in a run off come in first. In fact, this might give third
party people a better chance at winning.
-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9647 talk.abortion:47847
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:38:43 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1e0kq7INN4br@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>When society-at-large can offer an alternative, then society-at-large can
>and will make certain assumptions about behavior if the alternative is not
>utilized.  And society-at-large can and will make laws based upon the 
>behaviors -- when an alternative is available.

>Therefore, since giving up one's children for adoption IS an alternative,
>society presumes people who haven't given up their children for adoption have
>voluntarily undertaken to raise those children, and won't look kindly upon
>efforts to do them in.

I don't think it's that easy to give a 5-year-old child up for
adoption.  So if the parents find that they're tired of the whole
thing after 5 years and want to call it quits, and can't find anyone
who's willing to take the kid off their hands, should they have the
right to abandon the kid?
-- 
Jim Kalb 		"Not drunk is he who from the floor
(jk@panix.com)		 can rise alone and still drink more.
			 But drunk is he who prostrate lies
			 Without the power to drink or rise." (Clough)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date:  5 Nov 92 16:41:09 GMT

In <4NOV199217324454@utkvx3.utk.edu> drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve) writes:

>In article <1d986aINN42q@spool.mu.edu>, marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes...
>>In article <grendel.720903878@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>>In <1992Nov4.182120.27689@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> tcanham@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Canham) writes:
>>>John F. Kennedy smoked marijuana.
>>>Dan Quayle dodged the draft.
>>>>George Washington has probably turned over in his grave.

>Jack Kemp evaded the draft. Clarence Thomas smoked pot.  Dan
>Quayle smoked pot.  It was called the 60's.  You'd be suprised
>who did what.  It's unrealistic to apply 90's values to then.

Your argument is so faulty I'm almost embarrassed to respond to it.
But here goes.

If we assume that what you say is true, that in the 1960's everybody in
America suddenly entered a time warp which rendered them not responsible
for their actions, and that thirty some-odd years later, these things no
longer apply, then WHY FOR BETSY'S SAKE is everyone attacking Clinton
for what he did then?

And if we assume that you're full of it, as I do, and that people are always
responsible for their actions no matter how much time has passed, then why
is everyone oogling over Clinton's 60's activities as though they were some
unprecedented acts of treason?  I repeat, Quayle evaded the draft and bought
marijuana as well as Clinton.  I don't think either is a sign of poor charac-
ter, and I don't see anything wrong with a president who chose not to serve
in Vietnam and who chose to smoke marijuana (no more than I do a vice-pres).
But the hypocrisy is what I'm concerned about; the hypocrisy of people who
act as though Clinton is different from any other politician in the kinds of
decisions he makes and has made.




>-s

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh