HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush loses out to Madonna
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:05:25 GMT

pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh) writes:
>>>>   eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>>>>   Well, I prefer seeing Madonna in a teddy than Rush in one.

>>>Could Rush FIT in a teddy ?

>>    All things are possible. Give me some scissors and a 4-man pup tent 
>>and I'll give you a teddy that would fit Rush.

>Don't forget the superglue to hold it all together.
>What color would suit Rush do you think? Suggestions please.

    Given Rush's generous proportions, I'd say that jungle camouflage would 
be the most artistically suitable choice.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9187 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8094
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Limbaugh-Clinton Constant
Keywords: weight
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:27:28 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>       Over the next four years, I will test the following hypothesis:

>(Rush Limbaugh's weight) + (Bill Clinton's weight) = constant

    That's an interesting hypothesis, but I'd be willing to bet a quarter 
that it won't hold up without some "multi-cultural fudge factors". For 
example, I would propose that Clinton should be handicapped 15 pounds 
to counterbalance the effects of ham-hocks and fried chicken. Rush should 
probably receive some sort of dispensation too (for being born in the "Bran 
Belt"). I also think you should seek an NSF grant to cover any expenses 
that arise during your research... 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE - NOT!!
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:19:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.204848.14837@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>
>Bill Clinton did not win in a landslide at all....he won a simple
>plurality, i.e. more votes than anyone else. In fact, some 57-58%
>of all voters voted for someone OTHER than Bill Clinton, i.e.
>a BIG majority of voters opted for someone other than Bill Clinton.

Well -- you could look at it another way: some 62% of all voters voted for
someone OTHER than George "Herbert Hoover" Bush.

Yes, he won a popular plurality (even if it was an electoral landslide), not
a majority.

>Secondly...The democrats, on balance, lost ground in Congress.

Huh?  I though that the Dems GAINED ground in Congress.  Didn't they reach
60 members in the Senate -- enough to break a Republican filibuster?  I call
that quite a significant gain.

I undertand that the Dems DID lose in STATE assemblies, though, for the most
part.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Weinberg's Second Law:
	If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs,
	then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy
	civilization.
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: President Clinton
Date: 4 Nov 92 15:17:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Nov4.042540.2028@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>O.K.  I am possibly (arguably) the most conservative regular poster 
>to this group.  It is time to give President Clinton a chance to make 
>his policies work.  Please, let's not bash him for campaign promisses, 
>let's wait and see how his policies work.  
>
>Bill Clinton is now my president, and I desire to show honor to that 
>office by witholding criticism until (if) his policies fail.
>
>But believe me...I will hound him unmercifully if (when) his policies 
>fail...If that failure is his fault.
>
>Ted
>
>
>-- 
>            
>
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
>

NOT!


-- 
            

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
From: barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 12 Nov 92 12:35:40 CST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <grendel.721584583@camelot>, grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
> In <1992Nov10.154146.3064@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>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. 	
 
> Of course more to the left, tweedledumb.  It sure isn't going to be
> balanced by adding another Scalia or Thomas.

C'mon, people.  The conservatives think it should be more to the
right, the liberals more to the left.  It sure isn't going to be
"balanced" either way, because both sides are *never* going to agree
on it being balanced.

>  When the 
>>supreme court has been tilted to the left, it wrote law by judicial fiat, 
>>definitely not the original intent of the constitution. 

> I argue that a balanced court, _not_ a liberal-packed or a conservative-packed
> court, would best serve the interests of the people.  Balancing Congress
> doesn't work that way, and it doesn't work to have the executive and legislativebranches balance each other out; we've seen what happens, and it's called
> gridlock.  On the other hand, balancing the court would ensure that decisions
> are actually given some thought, rather than simply passed through as part
> of an ideological agenda.

Heh.  Balancing Congress doesn't work, putting the Prez and Congress
in balance doesn't work, but we *sure* need a balance on the Supreme
Court, yessir.  Best laugh I've had all day. Thanks.

-Jeff 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Why is the media apologizing for Clinton?
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:17:06 GMT

If you watch the news and talk shows I would assume that you also
have been berated by the liberal media (same ones that worked for
a year to get Clinton elected) that are all using phrases like:

	"Now there is no magic(k) in this..

	"He won't be able to undo all the harm that's taken 12 years
	 to create very fast...

	"Now, don't expect everything to get better right away...

and even...

	"Clinton knows that the American people understand that he
	 can't do everything he said he could, but that he is going
	 to try and work hard on 'some' of his promises.. 

HUH?  If I haven't been clear, watch a talk show (try Sunday morning),
and see it, all the pundints that said 'Clinton can fix this country'
are now saying things like...'it won't all happen at once, most
of these things won't actually occur until he's into his second term...'

I hope they are right.  I voted for Bush, but I don't feel a loss..
I feel like the guy that runs a 4 1/2 minute mile every afternoon
while a guy sitting on the track mocks him and yells 'oh yea...I could
run it in four even'.  He eventually gets tired of hearing the 
unsubstantiated claims (the sitter never has run even a 10 minute mile
before..(Carter..)), until the runner stops and says 'O.K. you have
four minutes (or years..) to show me.  If you do what you say (or
really even close), then I will sit down and shut up, otherwise you
get off the track and out of my way.'

In my book Clinton has four years....I am openminded...I hope that
at the end of four years we all live in Utopia (I doubt it..) or
something that is at least amiable to most. If we do, then SOLD!
I will help reelect him, BUT if he fails us (and he has NO excuses,
even controls the House and Senate!) then they will ALL be thrown
out on the keester.

NO MORE EXCUSES  ...   BOY!  ... let's see what you can do..

Chad   (not supporting anyone yet in '96 but I'll be old enough
	to run in 2004!)

--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:25:43 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

mmorgan@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Michael Morgan) writes:
> In article <IexccNe00awTEqPl4A@andrew.cmu.edu> gp2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gary James Patalsky) writes:
> >
> >An independent firm called Accuracy in Media did a study and [....]
> 
> Ahem.  AIM is a raving lunatic right-wing group run by Reed Irvine
> with absolutely no knowledge of methodology or research techniques.
> You must be confusing them with the report issued by the Center for
> the Study of Communication (carried by AP two weeks ago) finding that
> Clinton would win despite empirical evidence showing media tilt
> towards Republican issues and slogans and themes.
> 
> So there.   ;-)

AIM (Accuracy in Media) IS Reed Irvine's group; that's the seed of truth
in the lies above. "Raving lunatic right-wing group"? Depends on your
perspective; if you're over near Jane Fonda and Mario Cuomo, I suppose
they might look that way, but that's a pretty far-left perspective itself. 

I watched some of the election coverage on a local station; the local
reporters were fawning all over the Democrats; the farther left, the
better. They LOVED Vic Fazio, Di Fi, and Barbara Bouncer. But on the air,
in an interview with a candidate on election night, the anchor called the
candidate (H.L. Richardson) and two other Republicans "right-wing
extremists" and got belligerent when Richardson denied it. Now, I'm no big
fan of Richardson, but he's less extreme that Vic Fazio, the "Mayor of
Capitol Hill", a.k.a. "The Prince of Perks". 

The media IS biased; you might as well admit it. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: Rush loses out to Madonna
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 17:37:47 GMT

>   eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>   Well, I prefer seeing Madonna in a teddy than Rush in one.
>             ------ 

Could Rush FIT in a teddy ?

David

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:  9 Nov 92 05:06:50 GMT

In <6815@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>$In article <1992Nov6.184705.198@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>$
>$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?

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.
From: bill@wabworld.atl.ga.us (Angus MacPeevy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh Sucks
Keywords: Rush Limbaugh Sucks
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 22:37:14 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Shaque d'Amour

graff@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Eugene M Graff) writes:

> Rush Limbaugh Sucks--Howard Stern is the King of ALL Media

One's an apple, the other's an orange.

I personally like both.

--
"I'm not only the Hair Club president, but I'm also a client."
  -Sy Sperling
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE - NOT!!
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:12:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.221927.681@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.204848.14837@fid.morgan.com> joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
>>
>[munch]
>>Secondly...The democrats, on balance, lost ground in Congress.
>
>Huh?  I though that the Dems GAINED ground in Congress.  Didn't they reach
>60 members in the Senate -- enough to break a Republican filibuster?  I call
>that quite a significant gain.

  No the Democrats gains one seat in the Senate (was 57, now 58) and the
  Republicans gains 16 seats in the Congress.  The Dems still hold both
  branches by significant margins, however, but the Senate is not 
  filibuster-proof, sigh...

>I undertand that the Dems DID lose in STATE assemblies, though, for the most
>part.

  Yep and they also lost statehouses (governorships).  So Clinton's 
  "coattails" were remarkably short.  As it has been said, this was
  mostly a very vocal vote AGAINST Bush, not a vote FOR Clinton.
  However, as has also been said, so what?  Clinton is President
  and it is up to him to govern or fail.  If he "Carter"s, he will
  fail.  If he "Kennedy"s, he will succeed.  So far, the early 
  indications are that he will be a much better wielder of power
  than Carter was.  

  Jon Rosen

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: A sad day for America
In-reply-to: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM's message of Thu, 5 Nov 92 22:25:20 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Date: 6 Nov 92 12:54:42

In article <92310.51264.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM> J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:

>   Gee...I thought you were going to give me a *difficult* question!  :-)
>   When a drug company creates a new drug, the government (the FDA, I think)
>   *guarantees* them a monopoly on that drug for 25 years.  Libertarians would
>   not give this government-guaranteed monopoly.  Thus if other companies could
>   independently develop this drug, they could also sell that drug.  The
>   competition would keep prices down, as companies couldn't charge whatever they
>   wanted for lifesaving and necessary drugs.  QED--notice that it's the ABSENCE
>   of government regulations which accomplish this!  It's totally consistent with
>   the Libertarian ideal.

The problem I see here, Tim, is that no company, considering the
bottom line and answerable to stockholders, could justify tremendous
research outlays to develop a new drug just to give it away to every
other drug company out there.  It would be difficult to prove that a
drug that was 'independently developed' by analysis of another's
product should not be allowed.  I suspect that this would lead only to
stagnation in developing new drugs, not to any surge in new and
wonderful therapies.

Peter

**************************************************************************
If it weren't for LaRouche, more people would probably be Libertarians.
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 8 Nov 1992 02:32:23 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

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.


-- 
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: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 9 Nov 1992 19:45:21 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <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.

Correct.  The only written thing written is the court is to provide a
3rd POV, a check, a balance.

>  The president's job is to pack as much
>of his philosophy into the court as he possibly can, with the youngest
>jurors that will be accepted so they will continue for as long as
>possible.  

In a political world, yes.  In the Utopia-Political-World (where
the government is here to serve you, and be your friend etc ad
nausium) should this be the case?  And should we ask for
utopia?

>The problem with Thomas is that he is either NOT a legal
>scholar or a liar.  His claim that he never considered Roe vs Wade,
>probably the most controversial court decision of our time, says he
>either does not care enough for the law to sit on the Court, or that
>he does not have the integrity to sit on the Court.  You decide.

If CT was a liar, is that grounds to say 'No stairway....denied' and
not allow him on the court?  Or should he express his opinion
and be branded 'not an open-thinker, thus No stairway....denied'?

He was placed in the cat-bird seat cuz the liberals felt the choice 
would stack the court.  And they pulled anything they could to sink 
him.  With Clinton's choice expect the minority of the republicans
on the board to approve the next seat on the court to treat the
choice in the same manner.



-- 
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: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 9 Nov 1992 04:57:26 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <6815@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>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?

Is Mario the BEST qualified?  Somehow I doubt that too.  And when
Clinton gets to pick his seats on the court expect me to question them
as much as Thomas.  (assuming there is something to be questioned.
And some how Cuomo seems as questionable as Thomas.)



-- 
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.