HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:35:22 GMT
Reply-To: borden@m5.harvard.edu
Organization: Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA,  USA

In article <1992Nov6.140922.25193@fia.dmg.ml.com> jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Milamber) writes:
>
>You're about right.  The percentage of voters afraid of Billy-boy is the total
>of the percentages of people who didn't vote for him.  Bush got 38% of the
>popular vote, Perot got 17% (we're at 55% already, folks!), plus all the votes
>for the various other candidates found on the ballots in each of the states.
>The fact that Billy-boy won with less than 50% of the popular vote is what's
>really scary.
>
Then George Bush must be even scarier, since over 60 percent voted against him.
And Ross Perot must be even scarier, since 80 percent of voters voted against
him.  Can't you people get it throught your heads?  It was a three-way race!
In a three-way race, the odds of someone winning with less than half the
popular vote are greatly increased.  It doesn't mean that all the people
who voted for someone else is scared of the winner.  It just means that they
preferred another.  Just because _you_ happen to be scared of Bill Clinton
doesn't mean that everyone else who didn't vote for him is scared of him.
There's evidence from polls that about half of Perot's votes would have gone
to Clinton, and about half to Bush, which would have left Clinton with well
over fifty percent of the popular vote.  Also, I'd like to point out that
Clinton made serious inroads into traditionally Republican territory, including
New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and California.  What does
the fact that so many Republican voters turned away from Bush this time mean?
Maybe it means that _they_ thought that four more years of George Bush would
be really scary.  I know I was scared at that thought, though I didn't vote
for him in the first place.

Well, you can continue to rant and rave if that's what you're into.  Or you can 
pitch in and try to make the system work.  Which'll it be?

  - Dave Borden
    borden@m5.harvard.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner)
Subject: Re: Music on the Radio Show
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:35:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.164625.11639@oz.plymouth.edu> c_caddy@oz.plymouth.edu (Cc) writes:
>In article <92315.231124BJGLEAS@auvm.american.edu> BJGLEAS@auvm.american.edu (bj gleason) writes:
>>Does anybody know the name of the music that is played at the beginning of
>>the radio show?
>>
>
>I don't remember the name of the song or the album, but the group is
>The Pretenders.
>
>--
>		Clayton Scott "Cc" Caddy
>		c_caddy@oz.plymouth.edu	
>		Dittohead #10,287,531

I think the song is called "My City Was Gone" by Chrissy Waters.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 22:53:53 GMT
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Subject: Re: New Bumper Sticker
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Keywords: 

shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
| 
| In article <1992Nov4.132506.1@woods.ulowell.edu>, enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes...
| 
| >Looks like the bumper sticker business will be good.  I got a great idea to
| >make a fortune.  My new bumper sticker/button business.
| > 
| >**********************************
| >* DON'T BLAME ME                 *
| >*       I VOTED FOR              *
| >*          BUSH QUAYLE           *
| >*                NOT             *
| >*                  WAFFLE OZONE  *
| >**********************************
| 
| I don't know if you heard me or not, but a couple of weeks ago I called in to
| Claproot & Whitley on the air and told them that if Clinton/Gore won, that in
| about a year or so the best business to be in would be the "Don't blame me, I
| voted for Bush" bumper sticker business. 
| 
| I guess that I'm going to have some competition! 8-)

Yeah, well, I have the .signature monopoly.  Created mine first thing
Wednesday morning.

| Hey, care to be a partner and we can monopolize the eastern seaboard?!

Will you let me have the western distributorship? ;^)

Geoff ``Don't blame me, my entire state voted for Bush, and almost voted
Ross Perot second, and has two Republican senators, and replaced a
Democrat in the House with a Republican, and has both houses of the
state legislature controlled by Republicans, and, surprise, surprise, is
doing quite well economically'' Allen

-- 
Geoff Allen          \  Don't blame me, I voted for George Bush.
uunet!pmafire!geoff   \
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \
From: giovin@medr2.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is such a bad loser
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:41:40 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <40551@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>Rush is such a bad loser. He now claims victory for conservatism
>since the democrats had to shift to the center to be elected. Well,
There is some truth to this... The Deomcratic platform now
talks about military conflict as being justified under some 
circumstances.  Clinton supports a reduction in the capital
gains tax, the Democratic campaign practically ignored the usual
plea to minorities... etc.  

>the State. 
>were it note for Perot a similar landslide popular vote would have
>resulted. 
>Bright days are ahead of us, we have a liberal president. Cuomo will
This is really bogus.. that's like saying, "If it weren't for Bush,
Clinton would have picked up 500+ electoral votes."  Those people voted
for Perot, not Clinton, period.

>Cuomo will
>soon be appointed as supreme court justice, abortion will become
>more pro-choice.

I suppose abortion is not legal already?  How can it become *more*
"pro-choice?"  I assume you mean to say that the Supreme Court
may possibly be filled with more pro-Choice justices if and when
others retire.

Rocky Giovinazzo
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mpf1@ra.msstate.edu (Morris P. Fields)
Subject: Re: Rush shoots own foot again!!
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:36:56 GMT

I think you are missing the point when he talks about the "right to die"
and the death penalty.  Right to die legislation is irresponsible on the
part of the people approving it because they are saying that it is alright
to kill someone even though they may recover or go into remission and so
or they can take it to extremes and if they don't think that person would
want to live they can go ahead and kill them; that I think is wrong.

Now; the death penalty is something completely different from right to die.
Since this person did something that warranted a judge and jury ( and 
several other judges for that matter) to sentence this man to death then
he should pay for his crime.  He did something wrong and has to pay for it.
And for those of you that think that the death penalty is not an effective
deterant: tell me how many people that have commited a crime after being
executed.  The death penalty is for those individuals that commited certain
types of crimes not because they are inconvient.
		Morris Fields.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh's Falseness Revealed
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:28:30 GMT

[talk.bizarre removed from distribution]

jvogel@math.rutgers.edu (jeff vogel) writes:
>Fascinating article in the New York Times today. It seems that our dear,
>dear idol, Rush Limbaugh, not long before his radio show went on the
>air, hosted a New York radio talk show with a highly liberal slant.

    Did this show happen before or after his time in Sacremento? My 
understanding is that his show in Sacremento was also conservatively 
slanted, and I was led to believe that he moved directly from Sacremento 
to New York.

>He had often complained that his views, while popular, were not getting
>good ratings, and that he had some interesting ideas for what to do if the 
>show was cancelled.

>It is clear to me that he is really a closet liberal, only pretending to
>be a closed-minded idealogue in order to appeal to the more common of the
>common man and make a lot of money.

    You can never know that for certain unless you can read Rush's mind. 
Personally I can't see that it matters that much. During the recent election 
season there was a lot of mud-slinging of the form "Candidate X used to 
believe Y but has now flip-flopped"; I didn't attach much significance to 
that type of campaigning because I believe that it isn't a sin for people 
to change their minds. I always thought that it was a mark of intelligence 
to alter your behavior patterns if those patterns didn't work for you.

    Rush might have been a liberal in his past, but I've seen no evidence 
that he is a liberal at this time. In fact, if this article is on the level 
then it may well be the case that the reason Rush failed as a liberal host 
was that his heart wasn't in it; i.e.- he was actually a closet conservative 
then rather than being a closet liberal now.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Bill Clinton Survival Kit
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:00:51 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

Yuk, yuk, yuk..

You really crack yourself up, don't you, fella?

But how can you make *jokes* about the collapse of western civilization,
which is now imminent with Clinton elected?

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..
Think of it: very nearly half of the U.S. population is below average.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:27:15 GMT

archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully) writes:

>In <Bx7Etz.MFE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (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?

No, that means 70% felt they were the same or better off.

-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Drug use (Re: The Rush Blimp?)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: usa
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:17:18 CST


In article <nate.780@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
> >nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> >>    Alex Crain set a great honesty example a while back when he was 
> >>upfront about having used marijuana; I'll try to emulate him (and go him 
> >>one better). Not only have I smoked pot, I've used cocaine. However, I 
> >>learned as a cocaine user that I was getting a very inferior high, and 
> >>"I don't do that no more" (to coin a phrase from the Smothers brothers). 
> >>I don't see how education can get any more personal than that. I *know* 
> >>it to be true, and I have absolutely zero further interest in cocaine.
> 
> >This is impossible.  Cocaine and marijuana are illegal because they are
> >addictive drugs, a single use of which will addict you and ruin your life.

According to C. Everett Koop, nicotine is as addictive as cocaine.

> >You're telling us that you've used these drugs and are neither addicted nor
> >ruined?  You must be lying. (Or somebody else is.)

Have you ever heard of someone smoking and then stopping?  Some people do
it.  (I do not advocate anyone using cocaine or cigarettes, but they should
be legal.)

>     I'm telling you that I'm not addicted. As far as ruination is concerned 
> I plead guilty on all counts, but I would say in my defense that I was 
> probably ruined long before I ever used cocaine. The result of reading too 
> much P.G. Wodehouse, I'm afraid.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Nominee
Date: 6 Nov 92 01:41:53 GMT
Distribution: na, world
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:

>Well, at least we HAVE a precedent for such nepotism. Didn't JFK appoint
>his brother to be the U.S. district attorney? 

Close, but no cigar.  Try Attorney General and all around advisor.

 ===========================================================================|
 |                                      | Success is getting what you want. |
 |Don Wiggins                           | Happiness is wanting what you get.|
 |Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner       |
 ===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: The VERY silly party
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 13:32:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.203010.19899@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>
>Well, in analysing the election, we see that the state of california,
>with a high number of silly voters went silly as expected. Georgia went
>for the silly party, perhaps due to the high immigration of people
>with silly-leaning tendencies. And, New Hampshire, which has had
>in the past a huge number of people who are not in the least bit
>silly went completely gaga.

The reason my state (N.H.) went to Clinton is the ever increasing
Massachusetts migration.  They bring their failed politics to New
Hampshire and now are out to ruin ours.  Thank goodness that Merrill
won the guvernorship.  I'd hate to think what would happen with a
feminist tax-and-spend governor.

To all you people from the People's Republic of Massachusetts, GO
BACK!  You're NOT WANTED in New Hampshire!!!!!!!!!!!

-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 GO BLUE JAYS!!!   BEAT THE BRAVES!!!!
 ANNOY THE MEDIA.  RE-ELECT BUSH!!
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8246 alt.politics.bush:13615 alt.politics.clinton:16587 talk.bizarre:37429
From: curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: 10th Amendment (Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh)
Date: 9 Nov 1992 22:42:46 GMT
Organization: CS Dept. Snakepit - Do Not Feed.
NNTP-Posting-Host: mamba.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov9.143545.23836@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>Does anyone know where the Constitution gives the Federal goverment
>the power to wage a "War on Drugs"?

This power derives from an obscure section known as the 
"Backside Clause."

It is written, in really really tiny letters, in the upper
left-hand corner of the back side of the signature page.

"Regardless of the back side," it says, "we shall do whatever
the fuck we want to do.  Signed, K.G.F."

c
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 01:41:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.070237.29121@RedBrick.COM> jfr@RedBrick.COM writes:
#   
#   Richard Nixon in 1968 did NOT get a mandate (at least based on this
#   definition).  Ronald Reagan in 1980 did NOT get a mandate.

Repeating it won't make it so.  Reagan got 51% of the popular vote in 1980,
despite Anderson's (relatively) strong showing.

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 08:42:59 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:46:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.081832.11911@henson.cc.wwu.edu> brian h. harper,
n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu writes:
>..... Expecting everyone to support Bill in whatever he does is simply
>ridiculous. He has to earn that support. I'll give him the chance he
>deserves though. I wish him the best of luck. 

That is all I am asking for.

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:8530 alt.rush-limbaugh:9633 alt.politics.bush:13866 misc.test:13040 talk.bizarre:37996
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Is Rush getting tooooo irritating?
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:23:45 GMT

lawson@ecst.csuchico.edu (M. Todd Lawson) writes:
> I've been a big fan for years now, but Rush is starting to get sooo
>irritating that it's embarassing.  This "Clinton screw-up watch" is getting
>a bit annoying. 

    I would say that it's only annoying because it's premature. Clinton 
won't get inaugurated for another several weeks or so, and there really 
isn't anything of substance to report yet.

>He's Prez. now, so let's at least hope he does a reasonable
>job. Personally, I'm getting embarrassed to say that I'm a Republican.

    I was really impressed with the way that Rush handled the day after 
the election, but I'm getting less impressed with the way he's jumping the 
gun. Rush must have a good 6 month backlog of good animal rights and 
environmentalist wacko material to work on and IMHO he's missing an ideal 
opportunity to get back to basics. I'm sure that anyone who's followed Rush 
for more than 45 minutes or so has gotten the message that Rush is opposed 
to Democrats.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: enor@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Conservatism isn't dead.
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:12:16 GMT

Conservvatism isn't dead 
it just hit a speed bump.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:38:28 GMT

marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>>Man, I can't believe the complaints I'm getting with my sig

[snip]

>>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>>                           | Support the coup!

>Your .sig points out what kind of a narrow-minded person you are.

    Please, Marc, "narrow-minded" is non-constructive. Since this is the 
'90's we should replace the term "narrow-minded" with the alternate term 
"highly focused".

>And your summaries point out not only your single-minded devotion to
>whatever Rush limbaugh says, but the fact you have no life.

    By the same token, the term "single-minded" should be replaced with the 
term "goal-orriented".

>Why? What kind of life must you have that the best thing you can think 
>to do with your time is type up 'summaries' of the Rush Limbaugh
>show.

    What kind of life do you have if the best thing you can think of doing 
is to post critical articles about what John chooses to do in his free time? 
I thought you were a Libertarian.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8224 alt.rush-limbaugh:9298
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why alt.fan.rush-limbaugh????
Date: 9 Nov 1992 17:17:22 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov9.153906.28199@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>In article <69142@cup.portal.com> sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>I have been lurking in this group since I found it about a week ago.  Since
>>I was not here at its creation, I wonder if somebody could tell me what is
>>the purpose of alt.fan.rush-limbaugh??  Is it to discuss Rush and his shows,

The limbots felt it would be a place where FAN topics could be discussed.
Much crossposting occurs, so the group is a reflection of a.r-l.

>>of postings seem to be from people who hate Rush -- and are certainly not
>>his fans.  It appears that only about 5% of postings are appropriate based
>>on the name of this group.
>Well, your figures are a bit skewed - it's 95% of the postings that come from
>people who hate Rush, leading me to perpetually wonder why some people seem

Could it be the posters feel:
1) Rush's show is unfair
2) They can not express thier viewpoints on his show.
3) They thusly move to a forum where they can be heard
and end up here.   Or is such a concept beyond your grasp, you 
'just don't get it'.

kk>incapable of being happy unless they're ragging on somebody. Must be some 

Now, what is the difference between people in this forum 'ragging' on
viewpoints of Rush and Rush 'ragging' on the viewpoints of others?

>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>                           | Support the coup!

Look!  This man HATES Clinton!  See!  Look!  Wants to lynch Clinton 
before he can even do anything!  Hate-monger!


Now when you people grow up enuf to break the concept of speaking against
something is the same as hating it (cuz it's not) then perhaps you'll
be happier.   I know it be nice to see you grow up.
-- 
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.