HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 06:44:06 GMT

In article <122460020@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>>      Is this the individual the American people should send to
>> The White House?
>Maybe not.  Maybe not.
>But given the alternative, I bet Karl Marx himself would have a
>good shot at winning the presidency.

Even given his present condition!   :-)

-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.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Another batch of traitors
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Distribution: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:20:15 GMT

Gosh, Dittoheads, what's happening here? Can George Bush be wrong: might our
country actually be "unravelling at the seams" after all?

In Philadelphia today we had a group of retired generals and admirals
endorsing Slick Willie for President. One of them was even directly
involved in Desert Storm..

I mean, it's one thing when all those Vietnam vets come forth to endorse
the draft dodging, KGB-indoctrinated Moscow visitor. We might suspect Agent
Orange or something. But retired military men from the top ranks?

Rush had better get started on _See, I Told You So_.

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..
Oh! There's the deuterium.. Now where did that plutonium get off to?
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992 09:41:57 MST
From: <AUTSW@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle Smashes Gore...
 <1992Oct13.222245.9666@ms.uky.edu>

In article <1992Oct13.222245.9666@ms.uky.edu>, miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D.
>>Well, like I thought would happen, Quayle demoloshid Gore in the debate.  It
>>looks like Quayle could be the only thing that might possibly save Bush.
>
>>Ted K.
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAA
>
>We must have watched two different debates.

Yeah, I loved how Gore had all the pre-prepped answers... He sure was
"original"... Give me a break, it was like Gore was reading from a
teleprompter!
From: kanderso@mabillon.ICS.UCI.EDU (Kenneth Anderson)
Subject: Re: Rush 'n Phil (Was:Re: Bruce Herschensohn and Lots Of Other Stuff)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:45:43 GMT

In alt.fan.dan-quayle you write:

>>>In article <mlbruce.718410646@husc11>, mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:

>>Here I challenge your facts. In a factual disagreement, I suppose one must
>>check one's sources. Mine are Ed Rubinstein's columns in National Review,
>>particularly in the recent issue on the Reagan years. What are yours?

>Let us conduct a poll to see who has read Rubinsteins columns and what
>opinions you all have about his analyses.

How about taking this discussion out of alt.fan.dan-quayle.

Thanks...

>Ted K.

Ken
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Anderson                           |  "I'd much rather live in perfection,
U.C. Irvine                            |   than deal with reality." -- Kenbod
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy! Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy! Joy!    |  Practice random kindness and
                         -- Stimpy     |  senseless acts of beauty.
                                       |  -- Anne Herbert
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:21:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.225046.13429@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.212940.16972@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>
>>I can only judge by the film you conviniently mention for me.  Truth or dare
>>was decadence  on parade for me.
>
>I didn't find the movie decadent, because I didn't go see it.

	No great loss, not only wasn't it decadent, it was long and boring.

	Robert Maplethorp, Lisa Lyon, Andy Warhol - They know about decadence.
Madonna knows about pushing the middle classes out of the missionary position
and into her bank account, but thats about all.

	Of course, some people think that the missionary position is the
only decent form of procreation (with the lights out, of course) and that's
what makes her stand out so much.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

> >Thank you very much. I AM a Mega DittoHead!

It is completely amazing to me that even fans of Rush would 
say this about themselves.  This sort of sheeplike crowd behavior
has always disturbed me.  Oh well.

doug
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:14:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct09.105533.4150@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
#alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
#
##	Unemployment during the Carter years never went above the high
##6's, and there were more new jobs under Jimmy Carter then either of
##Reagans terms. (13M+ as opposed to 7M and 12M for Reagans first and 
##second term, respectively).
#
#There is a function (I can't remember the name of it) which trades off
#employment for inflation. The lower the employment, the higher the
#inflation, and vice versa. It then becomes a function of government
#fiscal/monetary policy to control where exactly they would like to be
#on the curve.

You're trying to describe the Phillips Curve.  It was once
believed that there was a constant trade-off between unemployment
and inflation.  The stagflation of the seventies proved this
was not the case.  Modern macroeconomic theory argues that
the relationship does not necessarily exist.  


#While unemployment is certainly not the best it could be, certainly it
#is not as bad as it was in 1982. What good is having a job if your yearly
#5% increase is eaten away by 10% annual inflation?

This is laughable.  Most of us prefer something to nothing.

[discussion of functioning in a global economy deleted]

##	Inflation was bad under Carter, but at least the GNP grew to
##help make up for it. GNP growth under Carter was higher then any time 
##during the 80's (yea, largly due to inflation, but also due to the massive
##number of new jobs). 
#
#References and figures? I believe it has been previously stated here that
#GNP during Reagan's term roughly doubled. Can the same be said about
#Carter's GNP, when adjusted for inflation?

(The quoted argument is ridiculous.  Citing high nominal GNP growth
and high inflation as off-setting is nonsensical.)

Here's all the numbers that I have handy:

Year     Nominal GNP       Real GNP*

1975          1598.4         2695.0

1980          2732.0         3187.1

1981          3052.6         3248.8

1982          3166.0         3166.0

1983          3405.7         3279.1

1984          3772.2         3501.4

1985          4014.9         3618.7

1986          4231.6         3717.9

1987          4515.6         3845.3

1988          4873.7         4016.9

1989          5200.8         4117.7

1990          5463.8         4155.8

*1982 dollars

Susan

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Stuff about Clinton
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:24:31 GMT

In article <Bw349z.18B@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.212824.18664@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <Bw2A3v.G0E@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct13.050240.29059@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Some interesting things about Clinton:
>>>
>>>How about putting a more truthful label on it:  your little fantasies about
>>>Clinton?
>>>
>>>>I wanted to see whatit was like to vote for Clinton, so I went into the
>>>>bathroom and flushed the toliet.
>>>
>>>Sounds like you've never been in a voting booth before -- no big surprise...
>>>
>>>>I had this dream that he was President, they played the Internationale at his
>>>>inaguration.
>>>
>>>I'm sure you'll include that in your "book" you allege you're writing...
>>>
>>>>I was walking down the street and saw a house decorated for Halloween and I
>>>>wondered why they had a likeness of Hillary Clinton riding a broom.
>>>
>>>Why go to that trouble, when Marilyn Quayle fits the bill so much better?
>>>
>>>>Bill Clinton wears a toupee--it's to hide the 3 sixes on his head.
>>>
>>>Those aren't sixes, dimwit -- they're nines.  Bill is a SubGenius.  :-)
>>>
>>>>Perhaps their daughter, if she was smart, would divorce herself from them!!!
>>>
>>>A pity your parents didn't think of that long ago...
>>>
>>>
>>>--PLH (and I'm only 320 kilometers from this loony-tune?  Gack.)
>
>>No, Billis just subhuman.
>
>Do you have some proof of that, or is this just another of your opinions
>pulled out of a hat?
>
>>Now, I would guess that you're undecided about who to vote for?? :)
>
>I know who I'm going to vote for -- and I'll let you know after November
>3rd.  (My candidate isn't likely to win.  There's a clue for you.)
>
>>BTW, I've voted before, in fact I voted for Bush in 1988.     You seem
>>REALLY paranoid about this sci-fi story I'm planning.
>
>I'm not paranoid about it at all.  You're starting to act paranoid about
>your thinking that I am, though.  You know, that doesn't surprise me at all,
>for some reason...
>
>--PLH (the more things change...)
Well, let's see, you must be voting for Clinton or Perot, or Marrou.
You getting paranoid about me getting paranoid about you getting paranoid :)

Simon
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Quayle Smashes Gore...
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:57:36 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

Well, like I thought would happen, Quayle demoloshid Gore in the debate.  It
looks like Quayle could be the only thing that might possibly save Bush.  

Ted K.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: The Limbaugh Poll
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:44:06 GMT

tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>In article <Bw56Gw.M7L@cda.mrs.umn.edu> luhmanjp@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu (Joe Luhman) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct14.220836.5004@afterlife.ncsc.mil>  
>>acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:

>>[stuff deleted]

>The reason Rush conducts these polls is $$$$.  He claims over 1 million
>phone calls to his 900 number for this poll.  The call costs $0.90.   If he 
>gets $0.01 to $0.10 for each call, he has earned from $10,000 to $100,000 
>for this poll alone (assuming he's not lying about the numbers).

INteresting.  That means that the people in America are willing to PAY to
have their voices heard, and they agree with what Rush is saying to such 
an extent that they will gladly pay a voluntary tax in order to subsidize
that speech.  If the NEA could do it, they would.  I notice they haven't.
Instead, they have to get Congress and a crowbar to get the same $$$$.
Makes you wonder about who better represents democracy in America, 
doesn't it?

>According to some radio program I was listening to last month, Rush's
>take for last year was estimated at about $1.7 Million.  No wonder he doesn't
>want us to tax the rich!   He might be just a bit self interested, ehhhh?

You say that like it's a BAD thing.  What is wrong with self-interest?
Aren't those unemployed auto workers practicing self-interest when they
complain to news reporters about how bad their life is?  Gore cried big
tears over their self-interest - this despite the fact that Gore must
have been DAMNED pleased to see them out of work.  After all, combustion
engines will have to be banned within the next 25 years if Gore's Marshall
Plan is to work.  These aren't the last auto workers CLinton/Gore will
send onto the streets if the environmentalists (i.e. Gore/Clinton) have
their way.

>The guy is a genius. He is a slimey, reprehensible, revolting con artist
>who is getting rich off of peddling hate, devisivness, and bile.  But,
>he _is_ a genius.

G.K. Chesterton said the communism boiled down to the claim "Your house
is bigger than my house, and I don't like it".  There is no love in your
statements.  Where is your care and concern for others?  Rush is merely
engaging in an alternate life style.  How DARE you force your morality
on him?  Puritan.  YOu should respect him for taking a stand and working
for what he believes in.  

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1992 10:55:33 GMT

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

>	Unemployment during the Carter years never went above the high
>6's, and there were more new jobs under Jimmy Carter then either of
>Reagans terms. (13M+ as opposed to 7M and 12M for Reagans first and 
>second term, respectively).

There is a function (I can't remember the name of it) which trades off
employment for inflation. The lower the employment, the higher the
inflation, and vice versa. It then becomes a function of government
fiscal/monetary policy to control where exactly they would like to be
on the curve.

While unemployment is certainly not the best it could be, certainly it
is not as bad as it was in 1982. What good is having a job if your yearly
5% increase is eaten away by 10% annual inflation?


>	Sure, inflation is down, but job growth had been *NEGATIVE* over
>a *FOUR YEAR PERIOD*. Low inflation doesn't help if you can't get a job.

Economically, this is not necessarily a bad thing. The loss of manufacturing
jobs, for example, shows that companies are taking advantage of resources
outside the US. This makes them more competitive, and ultimately more
profitable (and, perhaps, larger with more employees).

Wake up and smell the coffee. This 1940's approach to understanding a market
economy may have worked half a century ago, but today markets are global.
For a firm to gain a competitive advantage over its rivals in the marketplace
it must take advantage of every economic benefit it can - whether it is low
cost labor, low cost raw materials, reduced transportation costs, etc. This
naturally means that there is going to be a reduction in the number of jobs
as the economy "retools" itself and we begin to specialize more in those
fields where we hold a competitive advantage or economy of scale over rival
firms.


>	Inflation was bad under Carter, but at least the GNP grew to
>help make up for it. GNP growth under Carter was higher then any time 
>during the 80's (yea, largly due to inflation, but also due to the massive
>number of new jobs). 

References and figures? I believe it has been previously stated here that
GNP during Reagan's term roughly doubled. Can the same be said about
Carter's GNP, when adjusted for inflation?

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: eric@wdl35.wdl.loral.com (Eric Kuhnen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:27:10 GMT
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.202456.2434@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>|> In article <1992Oct13.190408.19387@wdl.loral.com> eric@wdl35.wdl.loral.com (Eric Kuhnen) writes:
>|> 
>|> >Furthermore, I testify that the only way lasting Peace may be achieved is
>|> >by knowing the true character of God.
>|> 
>|> And then you burn at the stake anybody who doesn't beleive in what you think
>|> is the true character of God.   If you manage to burn enough of em,  there
>|> will be lasting peace.

>Or make them starve to death because somebody's uncle in now a Brahman bull
>and we couldn't let him starve (after all it's their "fault" that they haven't
>"evolved" to a higher plain of life).  You get peace quicker that way -
>they're to weak to fight.  Oh, but wait, then again there's the "social
>democracy" (aka, socialism) of that "logical" standby humanism, so maybe we
>should just devide that cracker between all of us. 

Your bit about the uncle becoming a Brahman bull reminds me of a Monty Python
sketch about the guy whose mother has just died and the morticians suggest
several unconventional burial methods.  If I ever believed that my uncle
would become a Brahman bull, he'd be in trouble because I like a good steak
now and then. :-)

But more to the point, I'm representing myself as a Christian in what 
I consider to be the truest sense of the word "christian."

Eric
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

My opinions are based upon Reason and Logic, and are therefore not connected
in any way to my employer.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6980 alt.rush-limbaugh:7610
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Stuff about Clinton
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:42:54 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct14.124533.3137@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.212358.18538@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13.124400.4789@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner) writes:
>>>Here's some more Clinton jokes:
>>>
>>>If Bill Clinton get elected, how will he and Hillary travel around?
>>>
>>>Bill rides in Air Force 1 and Hillary rides the broom!
>>>
>>>I just noticed something. Hillary Clinton looks like Witch Hazel in a
>>>cheap disguise.
>>Look at Hillary on TV, then look at Mary Matalin, now tell me, who would you
>>rather look at for the next four years???
>
>I would rather look at Mary Matalin any day rather than Hillary.
>
>Have you seen her from several years ago. Talk about ugly.
>She had THICK glasses and looked about 12 years old then!
>
>To quote Rush, "Hillary is coyote ugly."
I saw that old photo of Hillary-Geez talk about bad!  And she's not coyote u
ugly, she is Samurai ugly-wake up with her and you'll commit hari-kari!!!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:53:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.164336.28279@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.104719.13053@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>
>|> >	The other major event is the rise of Limbaugh, Buchannan and
>|> >their ilk within the party.
>|> 
>|> "Ilk"? I wasn't aware that Limbaugh had a place 'within the party' to
>|> rise to.
>
>	Well, Rush was a convention speaker, so he's being recognised by
>the GOP powers that be.
>

Actually, Rush didn't speak at the convention per se.  He was a guest of the
Bushes at several nights of the convention (sat in the Presidential box on
a couple of occasions). However, he did speak at several conferences outside
the convention (pro-life keynote speaker, etc.)

>|> What makes you think that people will stop listening to Rush simply
>|> because Bush is no longer President?
>
>	I don't think that at all. What I am suggesting is that Rush's
>popularity is, to some degree, pacing the far right shift of the GOP, and
>that far right shift is costing the them votes. I don't think that Rush
>is directly responsible, but I think that the same forces that put him
>on the convention platform are the forces hurting the party this year.
>

I see a falloff of his popularity because of the TV show being a bit flat
in ratings (as opposed to what he wants you to hear, they _aren't_ that 
great- if so, he would have already had the one-hour format he so desperately
wants.) Also, the fact that his candidate (Bush) has been taking a nosedive
in popularity polls isn't helping much either.  Says that his "official" 900
poll for president (Gives Bush 88%, Perot 10%, Clinton <2%) is how the 
American People _really_ feel shows his lack of grasp of reality.




>-- 
>                               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


Tom H.



-- 

Just a message looking for a .signature file......
 
thyat@sdf.lonestar.org
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc