HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: seitzler@sscvx1.ssc.gov (JOHN SEITZLER)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:10:00 GMT

In article <1dp9d5INNi0l@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov ()         writes...
>In article <10NOV199213360109@sscvx1.ssc.gov> seitzler@sscvx1.ssc.gov (JOHN SEITZLER) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.171300.11448@netcom.com>, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)           writes...
>>>Man, I can't believe the complaints I'm getting with my sig - isn't it amazing
>>>that for 12 years, Democrats have been ridiculing Reagan, Bush, Quayle, and 
>>>anything conservative, yet when they are finally victorious they allow no 
>>>dissent whatever? I was going to change this sig after about a week or so, 
>>>but since it's irritating so many whiny liberals, I'm going to keep it around
>>>for a while. 
>>>-- 
>>>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>>>                           | Support the coup!
>>>CompuServe: 74076,1250     |
>>>Internet: jrs@netcom.com   |
>>
>>_________________________________________________
>>
>>Personally, I think your sig is great!  I am continually amazed  how
>>'out of control' the liberals get when we don't 'see the light'.  
>>All I can say is these same raving Libs (or RL's) will be talking out of
>>the other side of their mouths when Slick Willie really messes things up
>>(and rest assured he will!!!).  The last laugh will be ours.  It'll take
>>12 years after Clinton's 1 term to straighten out the mess he will make.
>>Don't tell me to 'give him a chance', just listen to what he promised!!! 
> 
>As opposed to what Bush promised in '88 and in '92 ? Perhaps you don't realize
>that many of the people voting for Perot and Clinton *weren't* voting on
>the promises of the candidate, but on the record (or lack there of) of Bush...
>Haven't you realized that *all* candidates lie to some extent and *all*
>candidates promise things that they cannot deliver...I would think you'd
>be well accustomed to that idea considering how many campaign promises
>Bush DID NOT deliver...
> 
>John
> 
Well, John, I guess you have me there and come to think of it Bill Clinton
will be able to deliver on his promises because he consistently took BOTH
sides of every issue so without even a twitch can say "I told you I'd do
that".  At least Bush (who I thought immediately became a "moderate" after
his election) stood for something!!  He definitely disappointed many 
Republicans or he would have swept Clinton.  The only satisfaction I have
from the election results is that now the Democrats can't blame what is
going to happen on anyone else but themselves.  I still marvel at the
remarkable job they did convincing the populus that Bush caused the
perceived economic problems when it was the Democratic Congress that chased
the elusive windmills of the socialist state throwing money at any and every
so called valiant cause.  But that is another whole subject.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Network projections
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 03:18:24 GMT

One thing that's been bugging me since election night is the networks
projecting the winners from state to state.

Using New Hampshire as an example, ABC declared Clinton the winner
just after 8 PM I believe.  Initially, Clinton DID have the lead, but
thats because our cities (Manchester, Nashua, Derry and Portsmouth,
etc.) tend to report first and tend to be moderate.  However, as the
North Country returns came in, Bush actually took the lead at about 11
PM.  It turns out that Clinton won NH by less than one percent, but
how can ABC or any other network project the winner in a state whose
vote was THAT close and wasn't sure until early in the morning.

Thankfully, the Democrats didn't make the gains in NH as the Democrats
were hoping for.  Every two years they say it's our turn and the NH
people will realise it.  What we DO realise is that we don't want
Democrats running the ship here.  We have seen what's happened in
Maine, Massachusetts and New York.  We DON'T want it in New Hampshire.

God bless,

Michael

-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Plymouth State Women's Soccer - #2 in the nation (Div. 3)  (15-0-2)
 Three wins from the national championship.  v. U MA Dartmouth  Sun.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8277 alt.rush-limbaugh:9358 alt.politics.bush:13660 misc.test:12911 talk.bizarre:37482
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 18:23:32 EST
Organization: ACME products - artillery division

bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:

> >Of course, thanks to liberals, the Bill of Rights is 
> >considered to have only 9 amendments already, so Clinton won't have
> >as big a job to do.
> 
> I'm a liberal - which one of the amendments is it I'm
> supposed to not be in support of?

The second, most likely.

> Since it's the conservatives who are threatening the right
> to privacy (with their anti-abortion stance) and the
> conservatives who are threatening the right to free speech (with
> their wanting an amendment to prohibit flag-burning) I am
> confused about why it is you think liberals are attacking
> the Bill of Rights.

?? Which amendment mentions the right to privacy? I'd love to see it,
and shove it up the IRS's rectum come April 15. Please do hurry with
your answer!



--
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:51:48 GMT
Subject: Re: The Decline of America
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, wdechent@usenet.umr.edu (William L. Dechent) writes:

> This is in response to the post from a reader who couldn't understand why
> Rush Limbaugh has fans, and he couldn't understand why anyone believed
> all of Limbaugh's opinion.
> 
> I hope nobody thinks Limbaugh is completely right; nobody should think he's
> completely wrong.  John Locke, the author of the ideas upon which this
> country was founded wrote that no idea was ever completely correct, and that
> no idea was completely wrong--for America to be America we must all realize
> that this applies to Limbaugh too.

There is a great deal of wisdom in this position, and I agree with
it to a large extent.  Compromise is crucial to the success of
our nation.

> 
> Every American should be encouraged to deal one on one with groups who they 
> think are "the enemy."  Ask yourself which interest groups you are afraid
> of--do you have any friends who are in those groups who you respect?  If
> not, can you change that?  It's the quickest way to shift from being an
> extreme to being a moderate.    


Yes.  It does not remove the danger of extremists on BOTH sides, but
it is a very responsible way to behave as an individual in my opinion.

> 
> America needs Progressives ("we need to change" types) and Conservatives
> ("change must be slow" types) on every issue.  

Yep.

doug
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8362 alt.rush-limbaugh:9436 alt.politics.bush:13745 talk.bizarre:37658 alt.politics.clinton:16829 misc.legal:19800
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: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 11 Nov 1992 17:53:47 GMT
Organization: CS Dept. Snakepit - Do Not Feed.
NNTP-Posting-Host: mamba.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <BD.92Nov11103208@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>
>I understand what the tenth amendment means, what I don't 
>understand is what I am promoting, as a liberal, which is in 
>violation of that amendment.

Well, for a start, you might want to flip through your
Constitution and check out the clause which authorizes the
FDA.  Then have a good gander at the section labeled "DEA."
After than, for kicks, you can wander down to OSHA and ask them
which clause they have framed and hanging on their walls.  In
fact, don't limit yourself to that; put on your jackboots and
stroll around the DOL corridors for a while.  Then put on a
tie-dyed shirt and take a tour of the EPA.  When you're all
through there, check out DOT.  This should be all.  You might
have an interesting time investigating just what it is DOA,
HUD, and DOE do with all their loot, but I think it can
reasonably be argued that graft, pork, and miscellaneous
pissing-away of funds falls under the header of "general
welfare."

If you're still interested, then, you can go down to the
law library and check out some Supreme Court rulings from
the early Roosevelt era.  That's the second one.  Franklin.

c
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Nov5.082832.19492JPII@tygra.Michigan.COM>
	<1992Nov5.153402.22809@netcom.com> <rdippold.721181889@qualcom>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:10:11 GMT

In article <rdippold.721181889@qualcom> rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
       [ haw haw, yuk yuk, "just joking" stuff about rmgrouping deleted... ]
   >>
   >>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 

Yes, indeed. All "non-compliant" expressions are to be purged, just as soon
as the new Pan-Democratic House, Senate, and Presidential electorates are
seated. 
 
   What do you expect?  Liberals and free speech go together like oil and
   water (respectively).

Shall I look up the ACLU's phone number for you guys? Or would you prefer
the number for the Moral Majority?

[Lighten up, Dittos! Join us Evil Liberals in laughing, or watch us
laughing at you!]

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Yo! Bottoms up! US motto. Boy!
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The 43% solution
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:23:08 GMT
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.

In article <HiD2TB2w164w@cellar.org> kml@cellar.org (Scott Tiger) writes:
>
>Presidents who won with less than 45% of the vote:
>
>Abraham Lincoln
>Woodrow Wilson
>Richard Nixon
>Bill Clinton
>
>(Note: Reagan only got 50.7% over Carter - his landslide, like Clinton's
>, was in the electoral college.)

AND Anderson.  I believe Reagan won that election by 10 points over
Carter.  Did you forget that or are you trying to distort the numbers,
something that is surely taught in Liberalism 101.
>
>Clinton won big where it counts.  Get used to it.
>
>                  Something constructive should come here.
>  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com - My other account is a Mercedes.

God bless,

Michael

-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Plymouth State Women's Soccer - #2 in the nation (Div. 3)  (15-0-2)
 Three wins from the national championship.  v. U MA Dartmouth  Sun.
From: sulkanen@xanth.msfc.nasa.gov (Martin Sulkanen - NRC/ES65)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,misc.test,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:04:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: xanth.sulkanen.720975889
Organization: NASA/MSFC

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...

Martin
From: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Predictions for 1993
Date: 12 Nov 92 10:06:13 GMT
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

: 
: You missed the whole point.  Rush claims that the "liberal media" 
: can't be trusted, and admits to being biased in the opposite direction
: in the name of "equal time."  But even if the media is biased, 
: presenting the *opposite* bias does more harm than good.
: 
: Understand now?
:
Sure! What you're saying is that the American people should not hear both

sides of an issue. The only side it seems you want them to hear is the
one coming from the liberal dominant media culture, Whom you yourself
admit is biased. No, the American people are best served by a free flow
of information. Then they can make up their own minds on an issue.
 
: 
: >Maybee you don't like what was being said, because it disproves positions you
: >may hold near, and dear to yourself. The truth is sometimes hard to swallow.
: 
: Maybe I know a little bit more than you about what it takes to "disprove"
: something.  Maybe I can tell the difference between news and entertainment.
: Maybe I'm not even the mean old liberal that you seem to think I am.
: Maybe you should learn not to assume that everyone who disagrees with you
: is one of "them." 
: 
: David
: "Make that 26 known Limbots.

AAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Rush uses sarcasm, and irony often because it drives
liberals mad. It also drives them out of the woodwork, and shows their true 
colors. Only a true liberal would call for the censorhip of people they
don't agree with. Remember Tipper Gore? 

DISprove what? You haven't even PROVEN anything. You called Rush a liar, 
and seem to think he propagates misinformation. I`m still waiting to hear of
even one particular case, in which Rush was cought in a lie, or misled his
listeners. Lets get into some real issues here!

I never assumed that anyone was mean or old. However, for anyone to have such
a reaction to Rush would indicate that the "L" word definitely fits.

Felix Gorney


"The man who reads only newspapers is less informed than the manb who reads 
nothing at all"
                      Ben Franklin
And: The man who gets all his news from television is less informed than the
man who reads only newspapers.

:wq
"
From: ktitus@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Those Wacky Conservatives!
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:34:13 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Nov7.175837.18237@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harry Tuttle) writes:
> 
> 


> 
> Oh, and by the way, if any of you out there can explain something to
> me, I'll be happy.  Rush has said many times (most recently in a USA
> Today interview) that the popularity of his show increases by 430+ 
> listeners a second.  How is that possible?  That's 13.5 billion people
> per year.  Even if Rush picked up every single person in the United
> States, it would only amount to 8 people per second.  I sure hope
> that Rush isn't lying in order to make people think that he is more
> popular than he actually is...
> 
> 

It is very obvious that you've completely missed the point Rush was
trying to make. By using that ridiculous statistic, he illustrates the 
ludicrousness of the same type of statistics used my many liberals. For
example, that statistic homes advocates use which states that 45 homeless 
people die a second. 

Kim



Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
X-Xxdate: Thu, 5 Nov 92 13:31:04 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:34:20 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.163731.24598@uts.cc.wayne.edu> Thomas Richard
Stevenson, tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu writes:
>Freedom of speech is NEVER counterproductive, pointless, or divisive!

I would defend the your right to say anything you want.
However, my opinion of this discussion still holds. It is
my right to state that opinion.

>And I disagree that we "have work to do ....!". I for one want the Gov.
>out of my life as much as possible, and I don't see that with Clinton.

Then go buy yourself a desert island. I, however, am concerned about
problems that have been allowed to reach critical proportions by
people with attitudes just like yours. You
can sit on your hands and ignore them if you want, but don't come
crying to me when one of them bites you on your *ss.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7996 alt.politics.bush:13285 alt.rush-limbaugh:9106 alt.politics.clinton:15995
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:02:37 GMT
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA

In article <8ey7rwu00WAwM3I34a@andrew.cmu.edu> ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.rush-limbaugh: 4-Nov-92 Electoral Mandate?
>Robert Knautz@cs1.bradle (958)
>
>> I heard (I think) Peter Jennings use the term "Electoral Mandate" in
>> describing Clinton's win.  Can somebody please tell me what the hell
>> that is supposed to mean?  A true mandate can only come from the
>> popular vote.  If they are going to call this a mandate, then Bush
>> certainly had one in 1988, and he at least got a popular majority.  

  That's very interesting.  How come the right-to-life movement isn't
  interested in the REAL mandate of the people (about 60% of whom
  favor abortion on demand and 87% of whom favor first trimester abortion
  in cases where the mother's life is at risk)?  Mandates are usually
  claimed in whatever way they work best for the person claiming them.
  
  Richard Nixon in 1968 did NOT get a mandate (at least based on this
  definition).  Ronald Reagan in 1980 did NOT get a mandate.  John F.
  Kennedy in 1960 did NOT get a mandate.  In fact, so-called popular
  vote mandates (if such a term is even meaningful) are not so plentiful
  as one would think.  When you add to this the fact that the percentage
  of people voting for the winner based on registered voters almost ALWAYS
  leaves the winner without a "mnadate of registered voters", the whole
  idea starts to become meaningless.  When you get to the percentage
  based on eligible voters (i.e., all people qualified to vote including
  those not registered), the numbers of the largest victors by popular
  vote (including Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide and Lyndon Johnson's
  1964 landslide) don't even qualify as "mandates".  The only place you
  get mandates is in totalitarian countries where there is only one
  person to vote for.  Pretty easy, under those conditions :-)

>> the popular press think they are going to pass someone who received
>> only a plurality(sp?) of the votes as having a mandate, they are
>> sorely mistaken.  One exit poll I saw this morning said (I was only
>> half-awake, so could be wrong) that 56% of the voters said they would
>> be concerned or afraid if Clinton was elected president.  Mandate, I
>> think not!

  So who cares?

  The point is, all you Rush supporters, Clinton won.  And in some ways
  he won pretty "big".  He did a 2:1 in the electoral college.  He has
  the closest thing to a pushover Congress (including an almost filibuster-
  proof Senate) that has ever been given to a new President.  It remains
  to see what he will do with this "mandate", whatever than means.  I
  hope, in the words of Danny Quayle, that he runs the country as well
  as he ran the campaign.  If he does, we'll do okay.  If not, he'll
  pay in 1996.  That's they way its supposed to work, and it usually does.  

  Jon Rosen
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: enor@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Amazing overnight economic recovery!!!!
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:46:51 GMT

Isn't it amazing that the press seems to think that the economy turned around
overnight right after Clinton eeekeed ever so slightly by the election.(He won
by oly roughly 600,000 votes in 10 states where a total of 103 electoral votes
were at stake).  I guess the sheer presence of President-Elect Cliton made the
economy turn right around.

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Robert R. Eno - A conservative voice in Liberal MA.  
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
X-Xxdate: Thu, 5 Nov 92 08:38:27 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:41:43 GMT

In article <Bx7sFr.DG8@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeyer steven l,
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>Too bad this attitude didn't obtain in the popular media during the
>Reagan/Bush years.  Seems to me that the shoe is now on the other foot.
>Hope you like walking in it.  Me, I'm going to do some heavy research
>into the legality of not filing.  Let Clinton soak his head, not the
>rich (i.e over $36,000)

Good attitude. I hope you get a cell with a view....

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7943 alt.rush-limbaugh:9063 alt.politics.bush:13205 misc.test:12707 talk.bizarre:36881 alt.politics.clinton:15884
From: thieleke@icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeffrey Ray Thieleke)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,misc.test,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:16:46 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA


Jeeze!  And I thought you were only kidding!  
Since when has Rush Limbaugh been linked to the Presidency of George Bush??
He started his national radio program before Bush, and he is continuing it 
after Bush.  And he'll long outlast William Jefferson Blye Clinton!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh