HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nau@ssesco.com (William Nau)
Subject: Re: Network projections
Organization: SSESCO
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:33:51 GMT

Simon E. Booth writes:
>You know, if you go beyond politics, the way the network gets ratings figures
>on entertainment shows is also open to suspicion.  Ever wondered why the trash
>shows get high ratings and are allowed to stay on the air while anything with
>a shred of intelligence gets canceled?  Then they try to convince us that we're
>supposed to like the gutter swill they're cranking out.  The ratings figures
>always seem to contradict public opinion about those shows.  The meda has
>elevated crap to high art.  Instead of just informing us and allowing us
>to make up our own minds (think for ourselves) they have taken it upon
>themselves to dictate to us what movies to see, what shows to watch, and
>what music to listen to, and who to vote for.  Is this a form of censorship??

Censorship?  Nah.  They just know what's good for us because we're a bunch
of unintelligent fools that can't think for ourselves.  That's what they
want anyway.

-- 
William R. Nau
Supercomputer Systems Engineering and Services Company (SSESCO)
511 11th Avenue South, Suite 216
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1536
(612) 342-0003

nau@SSESCO.com
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8483 alt.politics.clinton:16996
From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: This is OUTRAGEOUS...
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:59:38 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech

In article <1992Nov12.201653.20426@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
> 
> 		November 11, 1992:
>    
> Bill Clinton (President-Elect) was at the Arkansas War 
> Veterans Memorial Service today.
> THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. A DRAFT DODGER "honoring" war
> veterans with his presence? 
>   
> Okay, okay. Let's just put this in perspective.
> 
> Bill Clinton at the Veterans' Day Memorial is like:
>   
> * Sinead O'Connor at Burger King  ...

* Dan Quayle at the Veteran's Day Memorial
* Dick Cheney at the Veteran's Day Memorial
* Jack Kemp at the Veteran's Day Memorial
* George Bush in the White House

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Rush shoots own foot again!!
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:20:24 GMT


On today's (11/10) Limbaugh show, Rush once again demonstrated his
hypocracy.

Early in the show he launched into a diatribe about "Right to death"
laws, complaining about cases where, against all odds, people who were
either terminally ill or terminally injured made some level of recovery
or remission.

He stated clearly that "This taking of human life, WHATEVER you want to
call it, must stop".

At the end of the show, he reported on the execution tonight of a person
in Illinois (I assume), and commented on the gala celebration that would
be held at EIB affiliate WLS in Chicago AFTER the execution, punctuating
the comment with that arrogant chuckle of his.

And he says Bill Clinton waffles???

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //   No God, Know Peace   /\     * 
*                    Kelley L. Miller  //  Know God, No Peace    /P \    *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //                        /____\   *
*****************  James Trafficant for US Senate, 1998  *****************
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is such a bad loser
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:39:34 GMT
	<1992Nov4.150110.16771@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <40551@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center

The democrats have moved to the center?  Does this mean the
Republicans will as well?
--


Matt Landrum                    | mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "There's a fine line between 
Starkville, MS  39759           |  stupid and clever" -- Spinal Tap
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Supreme Court Nominee
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: na, world
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 22:51:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.090211.23103@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>It is likely that Clinton will get to nominate at least one Supreme Court 
>Justice during his First Term (roll that around in your mouths, and savor 
>the implication of 'first' versus 'only' (you know, like Bush's _only_ term)).
>Who do you think makes dittoheads cringe more;
>

>2) Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton
 

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



Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8408 alt.rush-limbaugh:9489 alt.politics.bush:13786 misc.test:12981 talk.bizarre:37780
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:38:05 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
> bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby) writes:
> 
> > >Of course, thanks to liberals, the Bill of Rights is 
> > >considered to have only 9 amendments already, so Clinton won't have
> > >as big a job to do.
> > 
> > I'm a liberal - which one of the amendments is it I'm
> > supposed to not be in support of?
> 
> The second, most likely.
> 
> > Since it's the conservatives who are threatening the right
> > to privacy (with their anti-abortion stance) and the
> > conservatives who are threatening the right to free speech (with
> > their wanting an amendment to prohibit flag-burning) I am
> > confused about why it is you think liberals are attacking
> > the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ?? Which amendment mentions the right to privacy? I'd love to see it,
> and shove it up the IRS's rectum come April 15. Please do hurry with
> your answer!
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.
> 

Actually, Liberals only believe that the Bill Of Rights has SEVEN
amendments; they omit the Second (Right to keep and bear arms), the Ninth
(Rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights are still rights; in other
words, "We couldn't list them all here") and the Tenth (Powers not
delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the States are
reserved to the States, or to the People). 

It is for people like this that James Madison opposed the adoption of a
Bill Of Rights, because he felt (correctly, as history has shown) that if
SOME rights were listed and others were not, that the ones not listed
would come to be seen as not existant. The "Right to Privacy" is listed
nowhere in the Constitution, but clearly is a right that the Founding
Fathers held dear; I suppose they figured it was so obvious that it didn't
NEED to be listed. But it is clearly "implied" in the Ninth Amendment,
which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain Rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You don't get it any plainer than that.

Ken Mitchell
Kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.ru
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:25:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Ohio State University


  Matt Landrum asks:

>According to ABC news, this makes the 16th president that
>has been elected with less than 50% of the popular vote?
>What did Reagan get in '80?

      Reaga (R)     51% popular         489 electoral
     Carter (D)     41% popular          49 electoral
     Anderson (I)    6% popular           0 electoral
     Clark (L)       1% popular           0 electoral
     Other           1% popular           0 electoral

                                     Steve
///
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
From: leahy@math.rutgers.edu (Andrew Leahy)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Family Values B.S.
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:21:22 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu) writes:
>  
>  What about that weak family values platform of Bush's?  Get real!
>  What is the GOVERNMENT going to do about family values?!?  Was Bush
>  going to come into everyone's house and teach parents how to raise
>  their kids?  I can see why he 86'ed that idea, although I don't know
>  what took him so long.  Can ANYONE tell me what Bush's plan was to
>  create better family values in the US?  I could use a good laugh.
>

That's the point, as I see it:  It's unlikely that government can 
create better family values through more financial involvement in the 
lives of its citizens.  If, say, it's true that out-of-wedlock pregnancy 
and divorce (and other issues related to so-called "family values") 
can account for a good part of the poverty in this country, then
increasing government spending on programs designed to alleviate the
burdens of poverty (as, undoubtedly, national health care for the poor
is designed to do) will unwittingly have the adverse affect of making, 
for instance, out-of-wedlock pregnancy a more attractive option for 
people.  

The loss of family values, which, among other things, led to the disastrous 
rise in single-parent households, has played a big part in many of the 
problems facing this country.  It's probable that government social 
spending helped initiate this loss of values (for example, by doing away 
with the financial necessity of a male breadwinner in the household and by
substituting the responsibility of family members and members of the
same community to look out for each other with the responsibility of the 
federal government to take care of its citizens).  Increasing government 
spending on programs designed to show compassion for the poor (as Bill 
Clinton has boasted he will do) may very well accelerate this loss.

A. Leahy
leahy@math.rutgers.edu
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: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:12:18 GMT

jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>Man, I can't believe the complaints I'm getting with my sig - isn't it 
>amazing that for 12 years, Democrats have been ridiculing Reagan, Bush, 
>Quayle, and anything conservative, yet when they are finally victorious 
>they allow no dissent whatever?

    Dissent all you want. Coups, however, are a form of armed overthrow 
of government which our system is devised to avoid. Since I know you I 
can appreciate that it's intended as a joke, but not everyone has that 
advantage.

> I was going to change this sig after about 
>a week or so, but since it's irritating so many whiny liberals, I'm going 
to keep it around for a while. 

    Suit yourself. I think you're jumping the gun, though. I expect to 
criticize Clinton some myself, but I'm holding off for real ammunition. 
If Clinton must be hoist by a petard, I'd prefer that it be his own. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8066 alt.politics.clinton:16124 alt.politics.bush:13372 alt.rush-limbaugh:9168
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:15:55 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Nov6.151933.18739@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
->In article <2098@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
->|>  The Landslide Media Myth is also exposed when you examine what happened
->|> at the state level senate and house races. The republicans did exceptionally
->|> well. A total of 10 states had a shift in the ruling party of either the
->|> house or senate. All shifts went to the republicans.
->
->That's a carefully selected statistic.  In Massachusetts, the (non-ruling)
->Republicans in Senate had a serious reversal.  Now William Weld, who is a
->popular Republican governor facing a Democratic legislature, has a problem:
->his Senate is 4 short of override-proof.  This will keep his attention
->firmly at home for two years.

 More election results are in. The democrats did win control of the state
legislatures in Vermont but, the total change so far is 11 to republican
and 4 to democrats. That is a solid overall victory at the state level
for the Republican Party. One state legislature (Florida Senate) is still
undecided as of my data (USA Today).

  Republicans Gain Majority Control of the Following
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 State Senate                  State Congress
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 Alaska (dem lost 1)         Idaho (solid majority)
 Arizona (rep gain 5)        Iowa (rep gain 6)
 Idaho (now veto proof)      Kansas (rep gain 4)
 Illinois (rep gain 3)       Michigan (rep gain 6)
 Nevada (rep gain 1)         Monatana (rep gain 14)
 North Dakota (dem lose 3)

  Democrats Gain Majority Control of the Following
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 State Senate                  State Congress
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 South Dakota (dem gain 3)   Vermont (dem gain 16)
 Vermont (dem gain 1)
 Washington (dem gain 4)

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: Re: Network projections
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A723CA15A401081A@alimac16.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Mon, 9 Nov 92 07:56:05 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 12:55:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.031824.16473@oz.plymouth.edu> Michael L. Le
Houllier, m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu writes:

>Thankfully, the Democrats didn't make the gains in NH as the
Democrats
>were hoping for.  Every two years they say it's our turn and the NH
>people will realise it.  What we DO realise is that we don't want
>Democrats running the ship here.  We have seen what's happened in
>Maine, Massachusetts and New York.  We DON'T want it in New
Hampshire.
>
That's right!  Two of my brothers live in NH and the fact that they
face the highest property taxes in the nation makes them proud to be
New Hampshirites.   The Republicans would never allow a state sale
tax or any other broad-based tax to be used for the improvement of
schools in the Granite State.  After all, if the people want better
schools let them pay for private ones.  And if you live in a poor
district that can't get much money from your poor rural citizens,
well tough.  After all NH is the Live Free or Die state and everyone
knows that public education is really a communist plot.

Of course there is the little matter of the class action suit that
might force NH to find a more equitable system of funding than the
regressive property tax.  It seems almost funny that the only way
that tax relief can come to NH is through a lawsuit, but any other
way would force someone in state government to admit that there is a
problem. 
 

TerriB.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8093 alt.politics.clinton:16210 alt.politics.bush:13412 alt.rush-limbaugh:9185 talk.politics.misc:58627
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:28:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes:
->====	===========	=============	====	===	========
->Year	Candidate	Popular Votes	%	E.V.	Turnout
->====	===========	=============	====	===	========
->1992	Clinton		39,788,218	43 		55%
->	Bush		35,151,640	38 
->	Perot		17,332,813	19 
-
-exactly what was the electoral vote total, anyway?  i'm curious...

BC	370
GB	168
HRP	  0

At least until we see how the electors really vote in December...
can Ross pay off 270 electors to become the 42d President? Hmm...
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	My humor button seems to blinking randomly. Read at your own risk.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is such a bad loser
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:01:40 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 15891@risky.ecs.umass.edu, giovin@medr2.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
>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.  

Hardly a "victory" in defeat, is it?  Talk about trying to put a positive
spin on something so devastating.

---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
From: dscharfe@dptspd.sat.datapoint.com (David Scharfe)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:09:17 GMT
Organization: Datapoint Corporation, San Antonio, TX

In article <6771@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes:
>-
>-exactly what was the electoral vote total, anyway?  i'm curious...
>
>BC	370
>GB	168
>HRP	  0
>
>At least until we see how the electors really vote in December...
>can Ross pay off 270 electors to become the 42d President? Hmm...

Wow, best idea I've heard since the election!  Maybe if we all
chipped in...

:^)   :^)   :^)

Dave
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 22:47:54 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: WANKERS
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Nov4.163946.5694@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
>
>
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!  CLINTON WINS  HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
>
>HA HA YOU BUNCH OF WANKERS.  ALL OF YOU BUSH SUPPORTERERS ARE A BUNCH OF
>LOSERS!!!  WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO NOW YOU CRY BABIES?  ARE YA GONNA CRY TO
>MAMA?  HAHAHAHAHAH!!!  CLINTON WINS!!!!

Perhaps they should all chip in and buy you a new keyboard - one that 
generates the "little letters" as well as the big ones.

PS: I voted for Clinton.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.irc
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: ATTENTION!!!
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Nov10.202621.23665@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Distribution: usa, na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:15:02 GMT

   In article <1992Nov10.002342.22401@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
          [...]
   >I will guarantee you that ruthless hecklers will be kicked and banned
   >for the sake of our peace of mind.

Sounds like a perfect New Right circle jerk..

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..
I admit the deed! Tear up the planks! It is the beating of his hideous heart!
From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett)
Subject: GIF pictures from Rush's TV Show
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:09:54 GMT

   Has anyone digitized any of the still pictures from Rush's TV show?  If so,
I would appreciate it if someone could FTP them to one of the EIB FTP sites.
I am particularly interested in the Clinochio and Clinznev pictures, and the
picture of the Clinton White House.

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 09:56:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.094559.9702@news.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE> k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.215124.7030@samba.oit.unc.edu> Norman.Miller@launchpad.unc.edu (Norman Miller) writes:
>>
>>Great subject.  It sums up perfectly the bizarre mentality of the Fat
>>Party that George Bush's (George Bush, for God's sake!) admirers 
>>see nothing wrong in calling the Democrats whiners.
>>
>>No complaint, mind you, quite the contrary.  I look forward to four
>>years of resentful, dyspeptic, and of course empty prose from the
>>Bush leaguers.  Carry on.
>>
>As opposed to the last 12 years of resentful, dyspeptic, and equally
>empty prose from resentful Democrats. Sauce for the goose. What short
>memories the victors have. Almost as short as the winners.
                                                   ^^^^^^^
Of course I *meant* to say _losers_ here...

>Carry on...
>
>Matt Marchese
>
Carry on...again

Matt Marchese


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh