HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 23:40:25 GMT



In article <1992Aug18.230036.759@pony.Ingres.COM> rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leut
hner) writes:
>
>There is certainly a bias in the 'news media' and it isn't a 'liberal'
>bias.  Millions of high school students are encouraged to refer to the
>bibles of popular media (t*me,n**wsw**k), which are so far right wing
>it's not even funny  (not to mention popular television, that propaganda
>instrument of the consumerist society).

I would continue laughing if I didn't think that you were serious.  Are you?  
Time and Newsweek?  You have GOT to be kidding.  Care to cite some examples of 
the right wing bias?  Or even "proof"?  You'd better have a bunch, for such a 
grossly exaggerated claim!  I'd be glad to prove the converse, but finals are 
in 2 weeks.  Well, I don't need to, because Rush agrees with me! ;)


>Here you are submitting as 'proof' some example that you are reading
>an awful lot into, then you go on to state that proof by example isn't
>valid.
>
>I agree, your assertion is bogus.
-- 
           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
             Win Twins!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Funny quote just heard on Rush
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 19:16:05 GMT

In article <170hrkINN6i7@agate.berkeley.edu>, schubert@capri.berkeley.edu (John Schubert) writes:

|> Perhaps some other posters can dig up an equally funny sign from last months
|> Democratic Convention...

	Why go back when you don't have to? My favorite sign at the GOP
convention is the Bush/Quayle signs ...

	In 1988, the Bush/Quayle signs were red letters on a blue background
with white trim. Thie year, Bush is in Red and Quayle is in purple, all
on a blue background (with white trim). The result is that in black and
white photographs (newspapers) and on TV, the purple blends with the blue,
and Quayle disappears from the ticket.

	Funny? Hysterical, considering that the colors were picked by a 
media consultant, who picked those colors purely because of the way that
they would appear on television.

-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: How evil are the Republicans?
Date: 23 Aug 92 01:23:36 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:

>In article <1992Aug21.114844.26876@wixer.cactus.org>, lazarus@wixer.cactus.org (Michael Lax) writes:

>All Bush and other Republicans have said is that the current laws of the US
>protect everyone in a fair and equatible manner, homosexuals included.  

I am glad I am not the only person who understands what Bush and the
Republican Party has been saying about the law.

>Because the Republican party is strongly against the granting of extra rights
>that will make a certain sexual preference a leagl minority does not make them
>evil.  Thus, to twist this to mean Bush is just like Hitler is rather lame and
>pathetic.  Homosexuals can be this way if they want, Bush has said this.  It 
>is just strongly immoral to many Americans that this certain lifestyle 
>decision be given more rights and privileges than a hetrosexual lifestyle.

Exactly, no one group should have their lifestyle enjoy enhanced laws and
protection over others.  There is NO comparison between the tactics of the
Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler and the ideology and policies of the party of
George Bush.

>The government under Bush is not going around kicking in the doors and 
>rounding up gays to put them into special camps.  Rather, the amount of 
>funding for a cure of AIDs became the highest medical funding catagory under
>his Administration.  He also had FDA totally re-organize their drug approval
>proceedure to speed up the process of getting medicine out for the treatment 
>of AIDs.  And just because he will not accept homosexuality as a moral and
>right lifestyle makes him just like Hitler is the most absurd thing I have
>heard in a long time.

The research into AIDS treatments and cures are proceding as quick as
possible without costing more lives thru incorrect treatment and drugs.
George Bush, or for that matter no sitting President would desire the
deaths of thousands of fellow Americans.  He does not have to like the
lifestyle in order the protect it, and does not need to single it out
for special handling.


-- 
David De Trolio - (detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
__________________________________________________

"We're sailing on the wind of better days"
From: mhl@spirit.ece.cmu.edu (Mikko H. Lipasti)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
Keywords: Buchanan Rush Limbaugh
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:16:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: world,usa,na
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon

In article <_2gyjhm@rpi.edu> mcgead@operators.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary) writes:
>>few words, on behalf of the 25 million unborn children destroyed since
>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                        no such thing
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Actually, Webster defines "child" as an unborn or recently born person.
Look it up!

Next time, avoid revealing your ignorance by checking your dictionary
before spewing off at the mouth.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.news-media
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:11:41 GMT

Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:

>jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>>Every poll I have ever seen (including one I posted by the L.A. Times)
>>has put the news media considerably to the left of the American public.
>>Would you like me to repost it or email it to you?

>I don't remember; did it allow for comparable levels of education,
>and comparable kinds of degrees?  Or is it the claim that educated
>people with social science degrees are generally on the left?

It had three respondants: The Media, College Graduates, and General
Population.  As you might expect, the media was to the left of the other
two, with college grads usually in between the other two.  They didn't
break down what the degrees were.


Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available: Software Engineer or MIS. MSCE, 1 year C++, Unix Experience
	   Highly motivated, keeps political opinions at home!
	             Seattle area, only.  513-233-4502

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% for health
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 09:25:46 GMT

In article <mykes.0c9u@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In article <nate.462@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>     How about a capital gains cut for long term investment (leaving the
>> current rate for short term investments)?
>>
>
>The problem with capital gains taxes in the short term is that they
>contribute to the stagnant growth that we've seen over the last 4
>years.  The tax is an incentive to not cash in an investment and
>use it for other investments.
>


I see the proposed tax on short-term capital gains in a different light than
you do. By and far, short term capital gains are usually the type who prey in
the short-term real estate market (a BIG contributing factor to the housing
market problems of recent times) and other get-rich-NOW schemes. All these do
is make a few people rich and artifically inflate the prices of whatever they
are speculating on.  The short-term capital gains tax would be more of a 
safeguard from abuse than a tax designed to raise a whole lot of money.


>> --
>> Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>> Psychology Department               Indiana University
>> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
>
>--
>Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
>Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
>Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
>1124 Fremont Ave.
>Los Altos, CA 94024
>

Tom H.


-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 19 Aug 92 05:14:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that opposition to abortion is
based in religion.  I'm as irreligious as you can get, though
tolerant of others who are religious.

My opposition to abortion is based on fundamental human rights, ie
the right to life.  Not even a mother (or potential mother) should
wield an absolute determination of right to life.  If it's an
intrinsic or "natural" right for us (the born), it ought to be for
them (the not yet born).

Too much of what "reproductive rights" boils down to is a failure to
take responsibility for one's own actions.  Sometimes that responsibility
should be shouldered, and not taken out on some innocent third party.

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d
From: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Subject: Re: Media Bias at Republican Convention
Reply-To: rogerl@Ingres.COM (Roger Leuthner)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:00:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.202358.15204@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>there is a liberal bias in the news media, let me give an example. 
>[Examples are not given as proof of bias in all other cases.  They are
>submitted to stand alone and to make you aware of what conservatives
>feel is biased reporting]
>
>Pat Buchannon (sp?) is speaking and gets to the part where he makes a
>"personal attack" on Clinton's draft evasion.  As soon as he started
>into the allegation, the camera is positioned solidly on Vice President
>Quayle--and stays there for the entire duration of the "draft dodger" 
>segment of his speech.  I ask you (if you saw it), was this news
>coverage, or a producer injecting his own opinion into the coverage?

There is certainly a bias in the 'news media' and it isn't a 'liberal'
bias.  Millions of high school students are encouraged to refer to the
bibles of popular media (t*me,n**wsw**k), which are so far right wing
it's not even funny  (not to mention popular television, that propaganda
instrument of the consumerist society).

Here you are submitting as 'proof' some example that you are reading
an awful lot into, then you go on to state that proof by example isn't
valid.

I agree, your assertion is bogus.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: comegys@eci.bbb.cal(Fred Comegys) (Fred Comegys)
Subject: Re: What a speech - Thank You Ronald Reagan!!!!
Organization: Enviornmental Concern Institute
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:44:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.122513.21957@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
> 
> 

> 
> 
> I had the best REAGASM EVER!  ;)
> 


But now we all have an STD;  Stupidity Transmitted Deficit.  
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: price@linus.serum.kodak.com (Kevin Price (x37128))
Subject: Re: EDITORIAL: The PC Catechism of Clintonomics
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 11:44:59 GMT

>In article <4618@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
> ...[lines deleted]...
>
> 	The Clinton program proposes increasing the income tax rate on
> the top 2 percent of the taxpayers, in the name of tax fairness. High
> income earners already pay a greatly disproportionate share of the
> income tax both in absolute and real terms (e.g.: the top 1 percent now
> pay more than 24 percent of the total income tax, sharply up from 18% a
> decade earlier.) The empirical evidence shows that the government is
>
> ...[lines deleted]...
>

Perhaps the wealthiest 1% DO pay more than their fair share, but this particular
stat doesn't tell us so.  What we would need is data that compares the total
INCOME of the top 1% vs. the total TAX PAYMENT they make.  (Perhaps it would
even be better to use NET WORTH instead of INCOME...)  Anyway, in order to actually
shed light on the REALITY of this issue, can someone please fill in the table below?

		   	Richest 1%	   All Americans     % from richest 1%
			---------------------------------------------------------
			|		|		|			|	
total INCOME		|		|		|			|
			---------------------------------------------------------
			|		|		|			|	
total NET WORTH		|		|		|			|
			---------------------------------------------------------
			|		|		|			|	
total TAX PAYMENTS	|		|		|			|
			---------------------------------------------------------



-- 
-Kevin Price		price@serum.kodak.com             
                                                          
 (please use the address above ^   The mailer may call me 
  nobody@kodak.com, but IMHO, I am not.)                  
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 22:15:37 GMT

In article <5957@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>It is pretty clear that by associating marriage with institutions like
>slavery that she was at least implying a pejorative connotation to
>marriage.  That's PC in the feminist world.....

	It's interesting that republicans are so concerned about what the
candidates wife said almost 20 years ago. does it also matter that george
bush was adimently pro-choice in 1972?

	I think that the legal rights of family dependants is an interesting
topic, with lots of repercussions into real life (can you say alimony?). If
the parents are separated, the children go to live with the mother, and the
mother dies, can the children sue their father for child support? This 
question has a standard answer now, but it didn't in the early 70s, when the
paper was published.

	If your so desparate to slam Bill Clinton that your going to character
assasinate his wife like this, then you probably don't have much do say about
your candidate. If your candidate is George Bush, I can see how that would be
true.
-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 15:51:26 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Japan and capital gains tax.
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug11.235223.17721@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>
>Look, we need a postcard like this:
>
>============================================
>|                                          |
>| Year income:_________________		   |
>|					   |
>|			15%		   |
>|					   |
>| Tax amount:_________________		   |
>|			                   |
>| Thankyou, Uncle Sam		           |
>============================================
>
>A little simplistic, but why not?

Well, it needs a little work, but consider the following.

1.  Eliminate all CORPORATE income taxes.

2.  Institute a national sales tax.

3.  Keep personal income taxes in some form.

This would solve a lot of problems.  Because of (1), business costs go down,
not only because of the actual cash saved, but because a big cost center
for business is compliance with tax law.  So a few lawyers and accountants
lose their jobs - they don't produce anything anyway :-).  This makes our
businesses more competitive with the rest of the world.  Not only that, a
large portion of the business done in this country is done by corporations
that pay zero income tax to Uncle Sam, because they're foreign.  With item
(2), ALL business activity gets taxed.  Item (3) is a fairness issue; I
think each individual needs to share proportionately in the cost of 
governemt.

Before you scream that "business not paying any taxes isn't fair!", let me
remind you that they don't pay anything right now.  The consumer pays -
taxes are part of the cost of doing business and are passed right on down
to you and I.  I think this proposal would actually *lower* prices, 
because of both a lowered cost of doing business combined with the fact
that there would not be any revenue flowing to a business that did not
have a tax levied on it, which is not the case now.

This amounts to taxation of consumption, instead of production, which 
would make our corporations more competitive.  It would also nullify
the tax advantage to corporations moving their operations outside our
borders, keeping jobs here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "The best thing about rainforests is they never suffer
                   from drought."  ---J. Danforth Quayle
                "Western Civilization is addictive and dysfunctional."
                   --- Albert Gore
PS.  Looking for more "good" A. Gore quotes.  Thanks to the fellow
     who provided this one!
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt)
Subject: Re: What a speech - Thank You Ronald Reagan!!!!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 12:25:13 GMT



In article <16q52hINN1ce@agate.berkeley.edu> schubert@united.berkeley.edu (John
 Schubert) writes:
>Hello,
>
>I imagine that the text of last nights speeches might be printed in some
>newspaper, but I just wanted to check something out with you.
>
>I thought one of Reagan's funnier "jabs" at the Democratic Nominee was the
>following:
>
>    When we see all of that rhetorical smoke billowing out from the
>    Democrats take the advice of their Nominee:  Don't Inhale!!
>
>Is this the correct wording of His quote???
>
>I'm asking because when I make up some t-shirts with this quote on the
>front, so I can wear them around UC Berkeley, I wouldn't want to be accused
>of a misquote or some spelling error (you know, like adding an extra "e"
>on the end of some word.  Heaven forbid-e!!!)
>
>Thank you-e,
>
>-John Schubert
>schubert@united.berkeley.edu



I had the best REAGASM EVER!  ;)


And to the commie who keeps writing here:  Ronnie destroyed you!! HA!
-- 
           Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
     Dept. of Chemical Engineering
      Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
             Win Twins!
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Joke from other newsgroups
Date: 14 Aug 92 19:13:49 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug13.193642.9364@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
->During the late 60's and early 70's pot was smoked at almost every 
->party I went to.   There was a lot of social pressure to smoke dope.  If
->you didn't, you were looked on as being "uncool"...  So, sometimes when
->I was passed a joint, I would pass it on.  But othertimes I would hold it
->up to my lips, and make a sucking sound out of the corner of my mouth.
->That way I looked like I was "hip",  but didn't have to violate my
->own stance on using drugs myself.

 Then why didnt Clinton say what you just said. He said he didnt inhale
because he didnt like it. If he didnt like it, how did he know without
inhaling. If it was due to peer pressure he should have admitted it.
He seems to be incapable of admitting what peer preassure has done to
his supposed moderate position.
 This is going to be a key issue with people and Clinton is going to have
to readdress it at some time.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: What does 'ditto' mean?
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:27:00 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

thompson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
:Dear Fellow Dittoheads,
:
:What does the word 'ditto' refer to?  I was told a while ago, but I
:can't remember.  So what does 'dittos from such and such a place' mean?
:
:Thanks,
:
:Rush Forever!

Gosh, I wish I remembered the "Rush Primer" on this one. I think dittos
is a short way of saying "Rush, I/we love you. We think you're the
greatest [radio talk show who ever lived, man on the planet, etc. Pick a
ditty like that]. We think you're right on [just about] everything. We
feel honored to speak to you." That sort of mess.
	I wish he'd replay that "public service" commercial again.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Funny quote just heard on Rush
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:20:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group


> Rush said that he saw a funny sign on the floor of the Convention last night:

One of our Arizona Convention Delegates phoned into a local radio talk show 
yesterday, complaining that he had been prevented from bringing his "AZ 
still (heart) AuH2O" (Goldwater) sign onto the floor.  Apparently all the signs
are made by the RNC staff, and handed out for strategic camera placement.   
Delegates are SEARCHED before entry.    This has made some of our fairly 
conservative delegates angry.   While freee speech isn't guarenteed on the 
convention floor, they feel angry.
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: TRANSCRIPT OF REAGAN'S SPEECH
Summary: Republican National Convention keynote address
Keywords: Ronald Reagan, Republicans, Republican National Convention,
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:03:40 GMT

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes [quoting Reagon]:
>To hear them talk you'd never know that the nightmare of nuclear
>annihilation has been lifted from our sleep.

    I guess Ronnie hasn't heard Rush reminding people that there are 
still missiles armed with nuclear warheads targeted on the US.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:3694 alt.politics.clinton:2131