HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pws2n@vision2.ee.Virginia.EDU (Philip Weaver Smith)
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE
Reply-To: pws2n@vision2.ee.Virginia.EDU (Philip Weaver Smith)
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 21:48:03 GMT

OK. Enough is enough.  Just take a lesson from athletes and learn
how to lose graciously and realize . . 

A win, is a win, is a win.  

What is the big deal if he won by one vote, or by 1 billion votes.
He received more votes than any of the other candidates and received
many more electoral representatives than the others.  No, it may
not have been the biggest victory in the history of American politics,
but it wasn't anywhere near the closest.  Other Republicans and
Democrats alike have won the Presidency without a popular majority,
and had very successful terms.  The job is Clinton's now, and he will
earn the respect of the American public not by how big a margin
he had at the polling booths, but by how well he can lead the country
towards the 21st century.  If mandates meant so much, why is Bush now
out of a job ? I seem to remember a landslide victory for him in
'88, and look where we are now.

Congratulations Gov. Clinton !!


--

Philip W. Smith                Office : Thornton Hall C242
			       Office Phone: (804) 982-2376   

-----------------------------------------------------------------
"A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission."
     				-- Neil Peart

Now that the election is over, and the country has spoken,
it is more important than ever to make sure that your voice
continues to be heard, that we all work together to heal
the wounds of the campaign, and move the country progressively
towards the 21st century. Stay active in the political process.  
Use the voice you have in this great country to continue 
to change the nation in a positive way.

                !!CLINTON/GORE <W>IN 1992!!

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: 10 Nov 92 04:23:35 GMT

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.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Rush loses out to Madonna
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 20:06:16 GMT


	_Sex_ has reached #1 on the Times Nonfiction Bestseller list, pushing
Rush's book to Number 2 after only 8 weeks. That means that, not only will
Madonna make a great deal more on here book (She has a $60million contract),
but more people are buying it, too. No wonder Rush hates her so much.

	Only time will tell if Rush's book has the staying Power of Al Gore,
who's book is still #7 after 22 weeks on the list. Still, that begs the
real question:

	Since Madonna is more popular then Rush, does that mean the Madonna
is more mainstream then Rush? Or, if Madonna is part of some radical fringe
(as Rush claimes), is Rushs audiance simply a less popular, more whacko,
fringe group?

	60% of the population may have doubts about Bill Clinton, but
more then that were sure that they didn't like Bush, and Bush was immensly
more popular then the next right wing challenger, Pat Buchannan. If Rush
and his ilk get their way, the next GOP offering will be somewhere between
George and Pat, and they'll still be surprised when they lose, because
after all this, Rush and the Dittoheads still think that they are middle
America.

	A little math shows that if the Christian Coalition represents
15-20% of registered voters, then they also represent about half of
the GOP (about 30% of register voters). If Clinton can avoid doing
anything completely stupid for 4 years, then he's likely looking at at
William Bennett or Dan Quayle as competition, and we're looking at
8-12 years of democratic presidents.  (It would be interesting to see
Kemp run, but I can't see kemp kissing Pat Robertsons ass, somehow).
Yessir, it's a whole new ballgame.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
From: jaceb@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Predictions for 1993
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:49:04 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

It seems that for the duration of President Bush's administration, the
Democrats and media have projected nothing but doom and gloom for the economy. 
President Elect (shudder) Clinton has tried to put across the impression that
there is nothing but suffering going on in this country.  People who think this
have no concept of what real suffering and hunger is.  There is hope, and there
always has been.  Those who think that there is no hope were spoiled with
prosperity during the Reagan years.  I guess that is the real problem with
Reagan.  The country as a whole was prospering, heaven forbid.  Now that things
may not be quite as peachy as they used to be, they can blame it on the
President.  If that is the case, then Clinton had darn well better make things
prosperous again, or he will be the one to blame, just like Bush is for the
current economic (?) woes.

Think of this:  Who will be to blame for the country's economic problems for
the next four years?  The Republicans?  Sorry, but the Democrats are in control
and they are going to have to shoulder the blame if things go sour.  That seems
to be the order of things.  If things are bad, blame the president.  Bill
Clinton is inheriting a recovering economy, so he had better know exactly what
he is doing when he imposes a tax increase on the rich AND the middle class to
support Congress's gluttonous spending habits.  President Bush found out what
happens when you increase taxes and remove money from the economy.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't want things to go bad just to get a new president. 
Clinton is going to be my president too, and I hope that he does a great job. 
But if he doesn't, and things go bad, he will have to shoulder the blame, just
like President Bush has.

With regards to the file "PREDICTIONS FOR 1993", I don't think that Rush has
ever denied being biased.  He claims, correctly, that he IS equal time. 
Somebody has to balance out the media's bias.  Just like they have done with
Bush, I think that Rush should, and will point out Clinton's faults.  It will
be interesting to see how well Clinton deals with some negative criticism.  As
far as the media is concerned, Bush hasn't done anything right.  Let's see how
well Clinton fares.  
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: eg1@ra.msstate.edu (Ernie Gammon)
Subject: Re: Rush loses out to Madonna
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:39:13 GMT

alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:


>	_Sex_ has reached #1 on the Times Nonfiction Bestseller list, pushing
>Rush's book to Number 2 after only 8 weeks. That means that, not only will
>Madonna make a great deal more on here book (She has a $60million contract),
>but more people are buying it, too. No wonder Rush hates her so much.

>	Only time will tell if Rush's book has the staying Power of Al Gore,
>who's book is still #7 after 22 weeks on the list. Still, that begs the
>real question:

>	Since Madonna is more popular then Rush, does that mean the Madonna
>is more mainstream then Rush? Or, if Madonna is part of some radical fringe
>(as Rush claimes), is Rushs audiance simply a less popular, more whacko,
>fringe group?

>	60% of the population may have doubts about Bill Clinton, but
>more then that were sure that they didn't like Bush, and Bush was immensly

   
   Now, I've got a question here.  How come, when that 60% voted against
Clinton, its because they were 'unsure', but when you turn it around, its
because they WERE 'sure that they didnt like Bush'????  Isnt that the same
sort of stereotyping that you very liberals are accusing Rush of???  
Something doesnt fit here.....


>more popular then the next right wing challenger, Pat Buchannan. If Rush
>and his ilk get their way, the next GOP offering will be somewhere between
>George and Pat, and they'll still be surprised when they lose, because
>after all this, Rush and the Dittoheads still think that they are middle
>America.

>	A little math shows that if the Christian Coalition represents
>15-20% of registered voters, then they also represent about half of
>the GOP (about 30% of register voters). If Clinton can avoid doing
>anything completely stupid for 4 years, then he's likely looking at at
>William Bennett or Dan Quayle as competition, and we're looking at
>8-12 years of democratic presidents.  (It would be interesting to see
>Kemp run, but I can't see kemp kissing Pat Robertsons ass, somehow).
>Yessir, it's a whole new ballgame.

>-- 
>                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
>  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
>   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
>                                                       - Robert Dole
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's promises
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:50:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh) writes:
=dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
=>I caught Rush's TV show last night.  He has promised to compile all of
=>Clinton's campaign promises and keep track of which ones are broken.
=>This would be a good thing to do, if it were done fairly.
=Much as I admire Rush I find what he is doing here a little hypocritical.
=It's all very well keeping track of Clinton promises but what about
=George Bush's 'Read My Lips. No New Taxes' ? My point being why didn't
=Rush do the same thing for Bush?

I think Rush has criticized Bush a lot contemporary to the Budget Deal.
The only explanation that is generally given about "putting taxes on the
table" was that it would coincide with genuine spending cuts, which you
get from Congress about as often as you get a Line Item Veto for the
President. In other words, about as often as hell freezes over.

=The fact is, I don't think there has EVER been a politician ANYWHERE
=who has kept every single promise. They can't because things occur that
=cannot be foreseen.

James K. Polk, but that was quite a long time ago.

=(A Clinton supporter AND a Rush fan - truly mixed up!)
Stranger things have occurred. Don't worry about it. :)
-- 
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: graff@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Eugene M Graff)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush Limbaugh Sucks
Summary: Rush Limbaugh Sucks
Keywords: Rush Limbaugh Sucks
Date: 10 Nov 92 00:44:31 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Rush Limbaugh Sucks--Howard Stern is the King of ALL Media
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9276 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8203
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH'S SHOW IS A BIT (ONLY DIDO HEADS DON'T G
Date: 9 Nov 92 05:06:25 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov8.162930.3100@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THE ORIGINAL POSTER MEANT BY THIS Subject: LINE,
>but I can tell you this: Rush freely admits that his show is supposed to be
>entertaining.

Entertaining?  I now listen to see:
1) how far Rush will go in gathering some 'facts' and drawing a 
conclusing from them that is lacking a major clue.
2) To marvel at the number of people who call and worship the man.
   (proving the world is full of fools)
3) To marvel at his cash cow.  1-900 polls.  Rush merchandise.

>And that's "DITTO HEADS" to you, SIR.  Obviously you haven't listened to
>Rush long enough or at the right times to understand either of these things.

Limbots works nice.  

Oh, and you've got the sthick down well.  If the viewpoint opposes yours
you just say 'They don't understand' in a condecending manner.  Good
little Limbot you are......


-- 
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: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 4 Nov 92 23:33:26 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

In article (Archer Sully) writes:
>
>In article (Don Wiggins) writes:
>>They then
>>asked those same people if they are worse off today than they were
>>four years ago and nearly 70% said no.  Hmmmmmm....
>
>Which means that only 30% felt they were better off.  Now, would you feel
>very good if you had made no economic progress in four years?

Your logic is faulty.

It really means 30% felt they were worse off.  There was not a
breakdown of how many felt better off.  I bet it was a lot lower
than 30%.  The media has convinced nearly everyone that they are
not better off.  Almost no one can remember four years ago anyway.
But the last two have not been too good, that's for sure.

I expect the number who are worse off to be a lot higher in another year,
never mind four.  The media will figure out how to blame Reagan.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett)
Subject: Re: Chameleon Clinton
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 08:13:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.125306.26618@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>  (Hint: it only makes Quayle look even
>stupider if you try to blame it on whoever wrote the card he was
>reading.) 

Perhaps I can blame my response on your "hint," since you have only left
room for responses that agree with your premise.  :-)

Actually, I don't have a response, so blame will have to wait.  I just
have a quote:

	And oftentimes excusing of a fault
	Doth make the fault the worse by the excuse.

			- Shakespeare, "King John"

Me, I thought the potato incident was a hoot.  But found the
following months of ridicule entirely out of place.

-mm-
-- 
Mark E. Mallett  MV Communications, Inc./ PO Box 4963/ Manchester NH/ 03108
Bus. Phone: 603 429 2223    Home: 603 424 8129     BIX: mmallett
Internet: mem@mv.MV.COM  ( uucp: ...{decvax|harvard}!mv!mem )
Looking for news and mail in southern NH / northern MA?  Try MV!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 16:15:12 GMT

In <nate.794@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, Nathan Engle writes:

>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?

They never have allowed dissent--at least not the far-left wing.  Look at the
"speech codes" on campuses all across America.

>    Dissent all you want. Coups, however, are a form of armed overthrow
>of government which our system is devised to avoid. Since I know you I
>can appreciate that it's intended as a joke, but not everyone has that
>advantage.

    Not exactly.  The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution because
the founders felt that an armed citizenry was the best way to defend society
from government tyranny.  Read the Federalist Papers and/or the writings if
Thomas Jefferson.  Of course, I think that a coup is not necessary. We still
have the ballot box, even if we do have a government and media which subtlely
convince the people that more government is better (sigh).

>> 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.

Knee-jerk radicals are hypocritical about stuff like this.  People who are
*real* liberals (in the classical sense) will accept it.  Of course, what we
used to call "liberals" 50 years ago are now called "libertarians."

>    Suit yourself. I think you're jumping the gun, though. I expect to
>criticize Clinton some myself, but I'm holding off for real ammunition.
>If Clinton must be hoist by a petard, I'd prefer that it be his own.

   I bitterly opposed Clinton.  Now it's time to hope that he really *is* the
moderate he campaigned as, and that all of the caged, bound and gagged liberals
who stayed out of the campaign aren't now released.  If Clinton succeeds and I
feel he's done a good job, I'll admit it.  Unlike the Democrats in Congress who
tried to fight Bush every step of the way, I hope he succeeds even if it
politically helps the Democrats.  Country over politics, I say.  Note that
Tom Foley wouldn't give Bush a capital gains cut, but he seems perfectly will-
ing to give it to Clinton to "help the economy."  Sheesh.


Tim Irvin -- planned Libertarian opponent for Congressman Don Edwards in '94
****************************************************************************
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A sad day for America
Date: 6 Nov 92 02:55:07 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Nov5.204046.8186@alc.com> stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen) writes:
>Today's "San Jose Mercury News" carried a feature in the business section
>called "How to survive Clintonomics" (they endorsed Clinton, by the way,

>1. Get a fixed-rate mortgage; rates are bound to go up.

Done.  I just got off the phone telling BofA to convert my
convertable.  It's going to cost me short-term (variable-rate mortgages
are dirt cheap right now) but it beats the rate going up to 14% in
increments of 1% every six months.

>> If Clinton could not run the small state of Arkansas,
>> what is he going to do to America?
>
>Actually, Clinton did reasonably well in Arkansas.  However, his prime
>means of causing job growth was attracting industry from other parts of
>the country (by being more "industry-friendly" than other states).  That
>strategy doesn't scale up to a national level.

Or, as Perotnoid said, just because someone did well as manager of the
local 7-11 doesn't mean they'll do well as CEO of Wal-Mart.

-- 
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
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: INDEPENDENT HOUSE SPEAKER
Date: 12 Nov 92 05:22:10 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

stevem@solbourne.com (Stephen Matson) writes:
=In article <6910@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
=>
=>What about that Socialist from Vermont(?)? That would definitely be an
=>interesting change!
=
= Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he is the only independent in the
=house. 

Exactly.
-- 
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.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:04:51 GMT

In article <1e0kq7INN4br@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>
>Now, when society does not/cannot offer an alternative, this series of
>assumptions, behaviors and ramifications does not occur.  Society can
>offer an option to parenthood, but it cannot offer an option to pregnancy.
>
>Adrienne Regard
>

Society does offer an alternative to pregnancy - it's called abstinence.
Abstinence is acceptable and reasonable behavior to expect from people who 
don't want to have a baby, whereas killing the child is not acceptable in 
the same way that neglecting a child when adoption is available isn't 
acceptable.
-Paul
--
---
From: ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle)
Subject: Re: C'mon Nathan Engle...
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:33:39 GMT

Hmm, better.  I like that...not the pedantic psychologist (a la Frazier Crane)
that I though.

	A friend of yours (not really) sent me some personal mail that was
	rather intersting...anyway, what is EIB?  This ivy education seems
	to have certain gaps in it.  I hear that we have a good psych dept      	though.  Lots of pickled brains of relatively famous people on dispaly.


	No real personal malice was intended but I really do see a lot of
	arguers as opposed to thinkers and it bothers me, even those within
	my own political arena.  No new hot topic right now, Bush is on a
	vacation of sorts, Clinton is playing golf and thinking about how
	he (Hillary probably) will redesgin the Lincoln bedroom.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9176 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8078
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: So much for Rush as prophet!
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:12:59 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com

In article <1992Nov5.204048.29366@netcom.com> John Switzer,
jrs@netcom.com writes (in his summary of the11/3/92 show):

>Rush again reminds
>people that he predicts in the latest issue of his newsletter
>that Bush will get 47%, Clinton 45%, and Perot 6%, and he is
>amazed that there are still those who think Perot will get 15 or
>16%.

Isn't it amazing the the people Rush is most in touch with (i.e. the
closest prediction) are the Clinton supporters!    ;)

Not so amazing is the fact that he has had *nothing* to say about his
Perot prediction which was off by 320%.

Greg Bradt  aka  ()The Lensman()
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Environment
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 8 Nov 92 16:18:30 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <1992Oct28.011204.25275@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu 
(David O. Laro) writes:
>I guess I just figured it out.
You weren't alone.

>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!

>Let's just wait and see which way the wind is blowing.  (feels like it
>is coming out of the 'left')
I guess we now know that to be true.

>David

Jennifer, Republican Extraordinaire, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now that it's over, I've received 5:1 e-mail.  5 pro-Bush, isn't this great?
we're gonna win in '96 for sure! to each 1 pro-Clinton nyah.  In light of
this, I still don't understand how he got elected.
--------------------------------------------------
mandate, v.  Democrats saying, "All right! It's ours again! Let's SCREW 'EM!!"
landslide, n.  Election by 40% of the vote, 5 points above 2nd place.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh