HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Suburbs swing to Clinton in Time magazine poll
Organization: ILS
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:44:23 GMT

In article <1906@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> 

> 
>  So, is this why polls are radically differing in results. The popular at 
> random polls show a very close race, and the selected (key county) polls
> are showing a greater than 10 percentage point Clinton advantage ?
> Obviously, ****the people selecting the key counties are selecting ones with
> a built in bias. Finally an answer for the chaos*****.
> 
WRONG,

Hey read down alittle;

	"The counties were chosen based on answers from the Clinton and Bush
 campaigns earlier this year, with at least 20 percent of the voters in
 each county considered highly independent."

Ans no one right now is showing a close race.  THe closest Bush has come to
Clinton was 6% in a Time poll two weeks ago,  which calculate "likely
voters".
Other polls simply gave the results for registered voters,  therefore Bush
6%, while a very positive sigh for Bush if the turn out is low, does NOT
indicate any cahnge in Bush's standing.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Tim Canham) 
Subject:  TV Station List?
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Reply-To: tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 16:15:05 GMT

Has anyone found a list of stations for Rush's TV show?

(particularly L.A.!)

---------------
"They always told me I would be a rocket scientist"
tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Timothy K. Canham                                          
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:10:36 GMT


	I am surprised that no one remarked on this board about a 
comment made by Bill Clinton on Labor Day in Independence, Mo.  
After stating the "fact" that the "richest" 1 per cent "controls"
more wealth than the "poorest" 90 per cent, he said that this election
is about "the rich versus everyone else."   I suppose that with 
Time-Warner as a major contributor to those forward-looking young men
who are eminently deserving of titular as well as moral authority,
"everyone else" must be precisely the target of Clinton's vengance.
Maybe Clinton should lecture an out-of-work maker of luxury boats 
about the necessity of class warfare.


Andrew Aiken

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jason K. Schechner)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:49:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.170742.35@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <PLuyqB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>]Here in New Orleans, on WWL radio, Limbaugh runs from 1-4.  I had WWL on at
>]about 3:55 to catch the WSJ report, and heard Uncle Rush close the show.  He
>]was telling his audience of highly literate and intelligent listeners not to
>]worry about anything important over the weekend because he was going to tell
>]them how to think on Monday.  Yup, we're dealing with a serious education
>]problem in the US if Limbaugh is telling 13 million folks how to think.
>
>Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that Limbaugh is kidding
>when he says that. Listen to him for a bit and you'll realize that he
>is very much an entertainer. By the way, I was also listening to that
>show, and I heard it too, but I recognize humour.


	Yeah, but the fact of the matter is that the bulk of his
listeners DON'T have that half a brain.  Almost all (of not all) of
the people who have access to this network are at least reasonably
well educated and can see the obvious sarcasm in Rush's statement.
HOWEVER, the majority of the American people aren't quite that lucky.
(and by lucky I mean a)lucky enough to be intelligent and b)lucky
enough to have gone to college).  
	They hear that and it goes through their minds that he really
will tell them what to think.  Try and remember what the smarter kids
back in your high school were called.  Right.  The smart kids, in
general were ridiculed just for being smart.  Intelligenece,
unfortunately, has gotten a bad rap in American schools in the past
decade or two.  Turn that around and this country will be back on it's
way to the top again.

-Jason
-- 
"Make up your stories, the truth's so hard to say.
 Brain is numb, and your tounge, will surely dig your grave." 
							-Dave Mustaine
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu
Subject: Re: Remarks by William Bennett (text)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 13:51:57 GMT

In article <6151@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>
jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:

>PA113718@utkvm1.utk.edu writes:
>
>> >WILLIAM BENNETT:
>> >Rather, we're seeking to
>> >honor and to affirm what is best in us, what Lincoln has called "the better
>> >angles of our nation." [Quotes mine.]
>
>> The Lincoln quote, it pains me somewhat to say, should be "the better angels
>> of our nature."  Is that really what the Republican National Committee's
>> own transcript said, "better angles of our nation"?  Geez, they might
>> have a point about this Cultural Elite business, after all.
>
>The G.D. Spradlin character in "Apocalypse Now" (the general in the
>trailer home) uses the Lincoln quote and also prefaces it with "what
>Lincoln has called..." Spradlin massacres the pronounciation, though, so
>it seems to come out, "the bitter angles of our nature."
>
>Bennett probably mines the movies for his best lines, like his mentor,
>Ronald "go ahead and make my day" Reagan.
>

Loved "Apocalypse Now," but I can't remember who G.D. Spradlin was --
not Robert Duvall?  Which character exactly was it who "paraphrased"
Lincoln.

I think you're onto something here, with the Republicans and Hollywood's
militaristic images.  Up until "Apocalypse," the Cultural Elite out west
had pretty faithfully upheld the GOP's romantic ideal of war as the ultimate
test of manhood.  No doubt whatsoever that Reagan's whole personna was
meant to be a sort of civilian Alvin York, despite the fact that Ronnie
himself conveniently avoided combat during the Big One.  It's ironic that
Quayle, the bastard heir to this tradition of chicken hawks, has chosen
as his prime target for ridicule the very myth-making system that got
the Reagan Revolution rolling in the first place.


>John
>

              Tom G.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Real estate decline
Date: 10 Sep 1992 23:51:42 GMT
Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mips.com

Stupendous Man) writes:
|> Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
|> >  
|> >> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
|> >>
|> >> And since the S & L crisis was basically caused by the
|> >> collapse of the oil industry, _if_ he hadn't been
|> > 
|> > And demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
|> >  
|> >>        It was caused by
|> >>1) Fraud
|> >>2) The collapse of the real-estate bubble
|> >  
|> >>        Oil industry had little to do with it.
|> > 
|> > Both wrong, gentlemen; the S&L crisis was caused by changes in the tax
|> > lasw relating to real estate development. Congress did it. Fraud accounted
|> > for less than 1 percent, even by the MAXIMUM estimates. 
|> 
|> 	Yeah, but what did those tax changes result in?  Real estate
|> speculation was no longer economically viable.  All those empty buildings could
|> no longer be used as "junk equity".
|> 
Don't forget that in the early 80's the FSLDIC and Reagan eliminated the
rule that no more than 25% of an S&L could be owned by one entity.  As a result,
a large number of real-estate developers bought or started savings and loans
which acted as captive lenders on their building.  Thus the bank's appraiser
worked for the homebuilder.  This spurred the building boom in some areas by
artificially raising property values.  These S&L's ended up with a larger 
base of bad loans as the values fell back to reality.

Thank you, Mr. Reagan, for trusting home builders to act in my best
interest.  You won't even trust me to make my own medical decisions.
_________________________________________
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my
dog's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Carter bad, Bush good?
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:37:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep6.153252.2364@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>	One of the mantras of the right is the Clinton will "take us back to
>the days for Jimmy Carter". Some ofthe more zelous Bush supporters will tell
>us about the gas lines that inspired Carter to impose a 55mph mandated speed 
>limit on the states (that was actually Nixon in '73) or talk about the 12%
>unemployment rates (real rates ranged from 6% to 7%), the list goes on.
>
>	Graciously, there are other sources of information, more reliable then
>Mike Schwartz and his ilk, to provide alternate numbers. These latest figures
>come from the NYT Market Watch column:
>
>	Changes in private sector jobs, as a percentage of the total
>	76-80	up 	13.92%
>	80-84	up  	7.30%
>	84-88	up	12.05%
>	88-92	down	0.04%

Statistics are like bikinis, it is said, because what they show is interesting
but what they hide is important.

>	Not that the news is all bad, the word is that Poverty has hit a 10
>year high (as a percentage of population) and a 24 year high (as a count of
>individuals), and these figures don't include homeless people, so the GOP can
>be assured that the Reagan/Bush administration has put and end to the welfare
>queens of old.
>
You neglected to mention that more money has been spent in each succeeding
year of the Presidencies of Reagan/Bush due to legislated spending increases
on the "Great Society".  In spite of ever increasing largess, the poverty
problem is not going away is it Alex?  So shall we continue on the same
road we've being trying for the last 25+ years?  Hasn't this been tried
long enough?  

And don't give us that, "spending on the poor decreased during the Reagan
years..." mantra.  The only _real_ change was in the rate of increase.
That is, a smaller COLA increase than the year before is termed a CUT!
Ha, another liberal euphamism.

Mike Best {mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:12:18 GMT

Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:


I don't actually know why I'm responding to a posting from New Zealand...
As if people there actually KNOW anything about American politics, or,
for that matter, should be sticking their noses into our countries
political scene...



>Did you forget that he is a heartbeat away from being your President?

Yeah, but I keep hearing this little voice in the back of my head saying
"Justice Cuomo.... Justice Cuomo...." and, compared to "President Quayle"
its alot scarier.



>Again....you dismiss the fact that he is a legitmate target because he has
>demonstrated incompetence while holding high office.

Oh, Quayle has done some stupid things while in office. But, so has just
about every President - Ford falling down all the time, Carter telling us
how he spent evenings discussing world politics with Amy for her opinions,
the list goes on and on. However, I wouldn't label them as "incompetence".
In fact, most of the "stories" about things Quayle has done are better 
posted to alt.urban.legend than anywhere else.


>He isn't just another man or woman. He is the Vice_president of the USA - and
>is clearly not up to the job. 

As if you would really have the credentials to judge who should and shouldn't
be in US political office. Leave that to people who know.


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              /
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Subject: Re: Family Values?  We don' need no...
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:48:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.233413.12850@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>
>
>FACT:
>Bush and Quayle have done nothing to bring about a change in America
>that would help the ailing families.  Too many families are poverty-
>stricken and cannot afford the values extolled by GHWB and JDQ ( it is
>easier to keep your values when you can feed your kids!)  If they 
>really cared about these families, they would act instead of vomiting
>consevative rhetoric about the "Liberal Congress"
>
>| Jared Dahl             | "My heart is human, my blood is boiling, | 
>| Systems Programmer     |  my brain IBM"                           |
>| IBM - Rochester, MN    |              -- STYX,  "Mr. Roboto"      |
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Opinions expressed are mine, not IBM's.


    One should be careful not to use the word "fact" promiscuously.
    What I'd really like to object to is the implied notion that you
have to have a certain economic status to hold conservative family
values.  (I really hate the word "values" in this context, by the way.)
It's just not true, either in theory or in fact.  There is nothing 
preventing a poor person from living a very conservative life and there
is likewise nothing preventing a very wealthy person from being a liberal.
The notion that "ideology" and class are inexorably linked is visibly
untrue.  
    To be more concrete, consider for the sake of example the pioneers
of the Great Plains.  Many of them were quite poor but had an even more
firm (and stern) notion of family morality than many conservatives today.
And this is to give but one example.
    In regard to your "fact," I'd say that the President and Vice-President
have indeed done substantial things to reinvigorate the sense for the need
of familial morality: 1. They have set an example themselves, and 2. They
have brought the issue to the fore.


John Rickert				  The family is..._the_ basic
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu	  human institution.  Individuals
					  do not spring into existence out
					  of nothing: they come out of
					  families. 
						     -- Fritz Wilhelmsen

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Why Can't Republicans or Programmers Spell?
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 20:56:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <6272@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:
>
>> i try not to point out spelling mistakes.  however, i just can't control
>> myself when someone who IS pointing out spelling mistakes makes one himself.
>> 
>> "merit" has one "r".  to make "merit" plural, we add an "s"; we do not also
>> double the "r"'s.
>
>Computer programmers built the USENET and at the same time initiated this
>completely bogus and self-serving idea that the illiterate use of the
>language was okay, and even irrelevant. Of course, if they wrote their
>programs with the same attitude, the programs would not work. These
>same people belch at the dinner table, wear their jeans with the top half
>of their butt cracks showing, and bath infrequently. And then they complain
>they can't get dates. Sadly, they usually end up marrying insane women who
>are looking for a way out of the half-way house.
>
>What does this have to do with Republicans? Simple: Republicans make lousy
>programmers. How do you like them apples?

Apples? I KNEW there was a reason that I hated Apple and the Macintosh - 
their programs are all written by liberals. Aha, it becomes so clear to me 
now! 
-- 
John Switzer               | 50 years from now, nobody will
                           | remember Candice Bergen or Murphy
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Brown, but every school kid will
jrs@netcom.com             | be taught about President Quayle.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4815 alt.news-media:1312 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3732
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:31:20 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep13.045615.465@eng.ufl.edu> jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
->The ridicule of Dan Quale has gone far enough!  It's gotten so bad that
->the jokes are preceived as fact.  People actually believe that Quale
->is a stupid moron.  Didn't someone call him a functioning illiterate on
->this net?  He is human.  He makes mistakes just like you and me.  

 Join the Rush Limbaugh crowd. Were laughing at the people laughing at
Quayle. How shallow they be.

Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
              "Rush Limbaugh, the Boris Yeltsin of America"
                 Avid Dittohead.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4418 talk.politics.misc:44347
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Sep 92 10:46:21 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <pgf.715991926@srl07.cacs.usl.edu>, pgf@srl07.cacs.usl.edu (Phil G. Fraering) writes:
> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
> 
>>The Bush gift list (so far this week)
> 
>>1. For Florida -- Rebuild Homestead Air Force Base.
>>2. For Louisiana -- Sugar Cane import quotas and tariffs
> 
> I think this could be multiplied a hundredfold and not
> undo the damage done to Louisiana's economy by Bush shutting
> down drilling off such large parts of the American coast.
> 
> And since the S & L crisis was basically caused by the
> collapse of the oil industry, _if_ he hadn't been

	It was caused by
1) Fraud
2) The collapse of the real-estate bubble

	Oil industry had little to do with it.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Length of the TV show - shelving?
Date: 14 Sep 92 12:13:35 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


I've gotten a number of questions about the length of Rush's show.  I'm
assuming his show is one hour long but several people have said his show only
airs for half an hour in their area.  I thought Rush said he wouldn't air his 
show on stations that would "shelve it".  Am I wrong about the length?  (I
personally haven't seen any ads for it on my local station.)

Thanks for your help.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Atteberry              |  The heart of the wise inclines to the
attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu  |  right, but the heart of the fool to the
D-D-D-Dittos!                |  left.  -Ecclesiastes 10:2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 04:04:17 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Sep13.032139.13186@rigel.econ.uga.edu> hughes@dogwood.botany.uga.edu (Wayne Hughes) writes:
> >
> >Did you forget that he is a heartbeat away from being your President? Citizens
> >owe it to themselves to hound a dunderhead out of office.....only Quayle
> >appears too stupid to get the message.
> >
>    Sorry, but if you want to lay the stupidity at the right doorstep,
>    lay it at the doorstep of the citizens who voted him (and his
>    boss) into office.  And may well do so again.

Well....as I have said before, the US electoral system has only a passing
aquaintance with anything democratic.
 
:-)
 


-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | End the two-party duopoly. Vote 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for the Mixed-Member Proportional 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | (MMP) voting system on Sept. 19th. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | Give yourself a vote that *counts*!
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: SPEECH: Dan Quayle on "Restoring Basic Values"
Organization: ILS
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:04:21 GMT

In article <5284@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> 
> Let me share with you a few statistics on the difference between black
> poverty in particular in the 1960's and now.
> 	- In 1967, 68% of black families were headed by married couples.
> In 1991, only 48% of black families were headed by both a husband and
> wife.
> 	- In 1965, the illegitimacy rate among black families was 28%.
> In 1989, 65% -- two-thirds -- of all black children were born to
> never-married mothers.

In the Summer 1968 there were Riots in Black areas all oiver the country; 
Detriot, Chicago, New York, LA, etc.  

In 1992 there was a Riot in L.A..  

Clearly the level of social anarchy was greater in 1968 then in 1992.  SO
how have the increase in alternative family situations lead to greater
riots when an increase in these alternatives was accompined by a decrease
in the number of riots?

There nis no doubt that children are being neglected in inner cities at a
tragic rate, crime, unemployment, racism, drugs, (in LA the LAPD was a
problem) and yes the present welfare system is to complicated and does not
provide enough insentive.  

But to assert that these problems would all get better if Blacks started to
get married is alittle silly.  To assert that the decline in the nuclear
family structure is a cause  has not been as of yet backed up.



Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4894 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3784
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Why Can't Republicans or Programmers Spell?
Date: 15 Sep 92 17:45:19 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu writes:

> i try not to point out spelling mistakes.  however, i just can't control
> myself when someone who IS pointing out spelling mistakes makes one himself.
> 
> "merit" has one "r".  to make "merit" plural, we add an "s"; we do not also
> double the "r"'s.

Computer programmers built the USENET and at the same time initiated this
completely bogus and self-serving idea that the illiterate use of the
language was okay, and even irrelevant. Of course, if they wrote their
programs with the same attitude, the programs would not work. These
same people belch at the dinner table, wear their jeans with the top half
of their butt cracks showing, and bath infrequently. And then they complain
they can't get dates. Sadly, they usually end up marrying insane women who
are looking for a way out of the half-way house.

What does this have to do with Republicans? Simple: Republicans make lousy
programmers. How do you like them apples?

John
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4967 alt.politics.bush:5313 alt.politics.clinton:5646 alt.politics.elections:13268 talk.abortion:36719 alt.sex:29567 talk.politics.misc:45739