HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Karl.R.Kistler@dartmouth.edu (Karl R. Kistler)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Term limits (was Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits)
Date: 19 Nov 92 15:34:41 GMT
 <1992Nov16.172925.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu> 
 <6996@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>  
 <1992Nov19.011903.10806@pmafire.inel.gov>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Nov19.011903.10806@pmafire.inel.gov>
cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:

> In article <6996@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@maui.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
> >More people voted FOR term limits in each of the 14 states which had
> >it on the ballot than voted for Bill Clinton.
> >
> >Hint:  It wasn't just conservatives who supported these measures.
> 
> So?  How many of those people who voted for term limits also voted to 
> return their current congresscritter to office?

The idea behind term limits is to break up the careerist mentality and
seniority system in congress.  Why should Jesse Helms or Teddy Kennedy
have so much more power than my rep?  I didn't vote for them. A
Congressman who gets elected with a 'throw the bums out' mandate finds
himself powerless as a freshman rep.  By the time he has substantial
power, (20 yrs or so) he has lost touch and become a bum himself. 
People traditionally hate congress but think that their own rep is good
because he brings home the bacon. A vote for term limits is really a
vote for limiting the terms of everyone else's Congressman. 
Unfortunately, you can't really do that without a national referendum
which Congress has a vested interest in preventing.
States with term limits will drive the national term limits movement as
the
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Name calling (Was: If character isn't an issue ..
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:46:57 PST
Distribution: usa
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <9680@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) wr
ites:
>green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>Have you noticed the clowns that supported Clinton so rabidly still haven't
>                      ^^^^^^
>>heard the election's over?  They still keep up the childish namecalling like
>>a bunch of spoiled brats.  Come on children, you're supposed to be more
>>mature than that, at least discuss your objections like adults.
>
>I see.  Now that Clinton has won, the liberals should stand back
>and let the conservatives do all the name calling?  
Why not?  You guys hav been doing it for so long!
		(     ^  Get the point?  Do you need it SPELLED out to you?)

>But what about those of us who, although Republicans, were so disgusted
>by Pat Puke-cannon and his ilk that we voted for Clinton?  Can we be name
>callers or not?  What about those of us who are conservative without
>being followers of Pat Rawburpson and the Coercion Coalition?  What about
>those Republicans who just couldn't stomach a President Dan Quayle?  Or
>those of us who listen to Retch Lymphnode, but are not Limbots?  
Such clever puns.  You can do all ther name calling you want, no matter
who you are on this 'Net.  Although I don't advise it.  Sue me, I like
maturity.

>You can see why I'm confused about whether or not I am allowed to indulge
>in name calling or not.  I'm anxiously awaiting your clarification.  
ALLOW MOI.  Send name calling and flames to /dev/null and let's discuss issues.
Ooops!  Now I'm starting to sound like Perot!

>David
>Anagrams:
>Presiddent Dan Quuaaiyl ==> End USA Quality and Pride.
Spells better than that!
>Rush Limbaugh Fans ==> Laugh, F------ Mush Brains!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't see no dashes!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush loses out to Madonna
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 17 Nov 92 15:21:12 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <1992Nov8.200616.346@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex)
 writes:
>
>	_Sex_ has reached #1 on the Times Nonfiction Bestseller list, pushing
>Rush's book to Number 2 after only 8 weeks. That means that, not only will
>	Since Madonna is more popular then Rush, does that mean the Madonna
>is more mainstream then Rush? Or, if Madonna is part of some radical fringe
>(as Rush claimes), is Rushs audiance simply a less popular, more whacko,
>fringe group?
Please!  Everyone has had, (oh sorry, that's) heard of, Madonna.  What's up?
Did you buy the book?

>	60% of the population may have doubts about Bill Clinton, but
>more then that were sure that they didn't like Bush, and Bush was immensly
>more popular then the next right wing challenger, Pat Buchannan. If Rush
>and his ilk get their way, the next GOP offering will be somewhere between
>George and Pat, and they'll still be surprised when they lose, because
>after all this, Rush and the Dittoheads still think that they are middle
>America.
If no one else will, I will hold you to that.  I don't think you're giving
the American people enough credit.

>	A little math shows that if the Christian Coalition represents
>15-20% of registered voters, then they also represent about half of
>the GOP (about 30% of register voters). If Clinton can avoid doing
>anything completely stupid for 4 years, then he's likely looking at at
>William Bennett or Dan Quayle as competition, and we're looking at
>8-12 years of democratic presidents.  (It would be interesting to see
Objection!  Pure speculation.  Who says that only those two guys are going
to try to run on the Republican ticket?

>                               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

Jennifer
*************************
* At least I can spell. *
*************************
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:44:02 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>>It is only those people who propose
>>PUBLIC POLICY based on religion-based morality who are in the wrong.
>
>Oh!  I see!  So people who argue that there should be a law against 
>murder are in the wrong.  People who argue that there should be a 
>law against thievery are in the wrong.  Can't see why it took me 
>so long to understand.

Do you really think that the only reason for a society to have laws
against murder and theft are religion-based moralities?  

I would argue that there should be laws against murder and theft
because without such laws we couldn't have a functioning society.
I suspect that most of us here enjoy the benefits of living in a
functioning society.  Therefore, if we want to continue to enjoy
those benefits, we should want to have laws that allow us to do so.

David
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Expansion of alt.fan.rush-limbaugh proposed
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:45:47 GMT

don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley) writes:
>>->The larger issue, though, is why
>>->anyone would actually devote the time and effort to summarizing over 15
>>->hours of radio broadcasts every week.

>  No, the larger issue is why people like you, who don't even like
>  Rush, spend countless hours reading these newsgroups every week.

    Au contraire, Don. IMHO the really really big issue is why people like 
you and me who truly like Rush spend our own countless hours wading through 
posts that attempt to present opposing viewpoints. I guess we're just open- 
minded, eh?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9765 talk.rumors:1294 alt.activism:18830 alt.politics.elections:23868 talk.politics.misc:60284
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Term limits (was Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits)
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:50:18 GMT
 <1992Nov19.153441.25692@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <1992Nov19.212555.5049@pmafire.inel.gov>
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Nov19.212555.5049@pmafire.inel.gov>, cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
> In article <1992Nov19.153441.25692@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Karl.R.Kistler@dartmouth.edu (Karl R. Kistler) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov19.011903.10806@pmafire.inel.gov>
>>cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:

>>The idea behind term limits is to break up the careerist mentality and
>>seniority system in congress.  Why should Jesse Helms or Teddy Kennedy
>>have so much more power than my rep?  I didn't vote for them. A
> 
> I agree, the seniority system has its inequities.  So, let's do something
> about *that* problem, and not blindly throw out the good reps with the
> bad.  

Sorry, but "we" don't have squat to say about the insiders-only, 
behind-closed-door, unanswerable-to-the-public Rules & Regs of Congress. 
"We" have been demanding for years they 
Do Something about campaign contributions, PACs, equal floor representation,
and the so-called "ethics" committees that leave the foxes 'guarding' the
ethical henhouse. If you think they're going to do Thing One to ANY perk that
helps them get and hold onto their power/perks/incumbency, you haven't a clue. 

>>Congressman who gets elected with a 'throw the bums out' mandate finds
>>himself powerless as a freshman rep.  By the time he has substantial
>>power, (20 yrs or so) he has lost touch and become a bum himself. 
> 
> One of the big concerns of a new rep is to simply figure out the 
> bureaucracy.  So what term limits *will* accomplish is a creating a
> continuous crop of new reps who have very little idea how the system
> operates.  This will, in my opinion, place a great deal of power in the
> hands of career bureaucrats that isn't there now.  What choice does a
> newbie rep have but to rely on the advice and experience of the permanent
> staff?

Sorry, but that isn't the case.  Congressional staffers (and PACs, too) are
100% AGAINST term limits.  If this coterie really thought they would end up
running things, don't you think they'd ENDORSE term limits? 

------

Paul Havemann, VP        HSH Associates          (201) 838-3330 | 1-800-UPDATES
Internet: paul@hsh.com   Compuserve: 70410,3507  America On-Line: HSH Assoc
 "Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the company."
  
"He walks again by night!  Out of the fog, into the smog -- doggedly...
relentlessly... ruthlessly... toward his weekly meeting with The Unknown..."
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 23 Nov 92 15:36:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
: In article <10002@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin) writes:
: >krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
: >>>It is only those people who propose
: >>>PUBLIC POLICY based on religion-based morality who are in the wrong.
: >>
: >>Oh!  I see!  So people who argue that there should be a law against 
: >>murder are in the wrong.  People who argue that there should be a 
: >>law against thievery are in the wrong.  Can't see why it took me 
: >>so long to understand.
: >
: >Do you really think that the only reason for a society to have laws
: >against murder and theft are religion-based moralities?  
: 
: Please re-read your original post above.  You do not specify that you 
: are talking only about public policy which is based "entirely" on 
: religion.  You simply state "based on religion."  If you mean the 
: former, as opposed to the latter, then we would probably agree.
: >
: >I would argue that there should be laws against murder and theft
: >because without such laws we couldn't have a functioning society.
: >I suspect that most of us here enjoy the benefits of living in a
: >functioning society.  Therefore, if we want to continue to enjoy
: >those benefits, we should want to have laws that allow us to do so.
: >
: >David
: 
: But on the other hand, what damage does voluntary school prayer do?  
: Perhaps, it could be argued that the non-christian may feel self-conscious, 
: but we do not seem to use that as a basis for restricting rights in 
: general.  I could, for example, claim that homosexuals should not be 
: allowed to share showers with heterosexuals because the heteros would 
: feel self-conscious, but we all know that the supreme court nor the 
: ACLU cares a lick about how heteros feel about these things.
: A
: Ted

Ted, nobody's talking about "voluntary" school prayer- yes, there
have been isolated instances where overzealous administrators kept
kids from praying, but as a general rule, anybody who wants to pray
in school is free to do so at any time (except when he's supposed
to be, say, working on math problems or something).  What
conservatives are pushing for is *state-sponsored* prayer;
something which should offend people of all religions.

Bill          
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10109 alt.politics.clinton:17561
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Liberal Agenda
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:33:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <bill.722026438@castor> bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge) writes:

>It's easy - the ones with outies shower in one bathroom, and the ones
>with innies shower in another.  If anyone touches anyone else in
>the shower (assuming it's a public shower), they're thrown out.

Now we get to the real reason why gays want to be in the military.  They 
want to take showers with men so they can see a bunch of naked men's 
bodies.  Get a clue!  The reason why men do not shower with women is 
because the women feel self conscious.  This is also why gays should 
not shower with straights.  The straights will feel self conscious.  But 
oh!  I forgot!  Straights are not a minority, so their feelings are not 
taken into account.

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
From: bm562@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard L. Trionfo)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The Gang of Five
Date: 16 Nov 1992 18:45:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


   Those who say the Gang of Four in China are dead have been
proven wrong by the presense of Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton,
Tom Foley, Richard Gephardt, and George Mitchell together in
Little Rock last night.  Let's hope there is no conservative
student rally in Lafayette Park or they will send in the
only tank of the U.S. Army on them.
            Rich
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: New Course on tape!
Summary: Just in fun, folks. ;-)
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:09:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh


New radio ad to be heard nationwide!

MAN: Who's buried under Giants Stadium?
WOMAN: Jimmy Hoffa.
MAN: Can you spell that?
WOMAN: Sure. H-O-F-F-A.
MAN: Do you know what that means in History?
WOMAN: H-O-F-F-A?
MAN: It means: A very nice man whose only desire was for the betterment
of the working man in America, who was put in unfortunate situations and suspiciously disappeared before his work could be completed.
WOMAN: Wow! History is easy!
MAN: And that's just one of the patented techniques you'll learn in Liberal Dynamics' new Revisionist History(tm) speed tapes! Learn about Hoffa and more of America's greatest heros for peace and decency: including Malcolm X and JFK! With Liberal Dynamics, you'll learn how the economy was better in 1966 under Johnson that it was in 1986 under Reagan. You'll learn how Lincoln was evil!
MAN: If learning history is important to you, call 1-800-LIBERAL, and say... what?
WOMAN: H-O-F-F-A!

Order now and get a free pair of democrat Rose Colored Glasses!


-- 
Greg Trotter				| Joe Isuzu in '96
Norman, Oklahoma			|     -- Stay the Course!
Internet: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu	|
Fidonet: 1:147/63 Treknet: 87:6012/8009	| I don't even represent me.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10032 talk.politics.misc:60960
From: davidl@Bonnie.ICS.UCI.EDU
Subject: Trend
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:37:32 GMT




	 From what I have been reading in the news, there seems to be
	a trend ....The trend is this:

			-last week, when Clinton was calling the leaders
			of the world, the King of Saudi Arabia startled
			Clinton during their cordial talk about the rising
			arms buildup in Iran.

			-Iran recently obtains 2 relatively new Soviet
			subs....and are using them in the Persian Gulf...
			especially at the Strait of Hormuz..

			-nations in the Gulf area are screaming to buy
			anti-sub equipment and weapons.

			-Clinton asks the US Intelligence Community to
			get daily intelligence reports  similar to what
			the President gets every morning...the CIA complies.

			-yesterday (wed 11-18)...Bush and Clinton talk
			at the White House......Bush tells Clinton about
			the potential trouble spots around the world----
			at Clinton's request...Foreign issue is the
			only KEY topic they discuss among formality/transition
			issues.

			-Clinton fights back against Sen. Sam Nunn (demo.-GA)
			statements that the military should not allow
			gays in the military for a while....

			-Last week on David Brinkley (ABC Sunday afternooon)
			, topic: gays in the	military

			-1 week ago today, on PrimeTime Live (ABC) had
			an piece on a lesbian Army Colonel....

			-US News & World Report-pg 78 (last week )
			Summary: Clinton's plan or lack of one.and key questions
			he must answer.

			-Finally, LA Times last week, Clinton's Communications
			Staff Person George Stephon(etc...)  tells reporters
			that Clinton has contact important foreign policy
			people to come up with new foreign policy...changes
			and answering of fundamental questions....

			The important person they contacted is Carter's
			NSA deputy adviser......Theme of F.P. is not
			crisis management, but  crisis DEFERMENT.......'


			what do you think this means ??????


			I believe that Clinton, who wanted to concentrate
			on domestic issues is going to realize that
			being President is much more than (his dream title of)
			 America's economic coordinator.....

			With no experience, Clinton now has to steer the
			world out of the Post-Cold War era....

			sniff.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush on Military Ban
From: hilverdingjm@hiramb.bitnet
Date: 17 Nov 92 08:37:58 -0500
Organization: Hiram College
Nntp-Posting-User: hilverdingjm

Just a quick question concerning the radio broadcast on November 16,1992:

I tuned in just at the end of the first hour while Rush was discussing
with a female caller the possible overturning of the ban on homosexuals 
in the U.S. Armed Forces.  I missed the start of the conversation and 
was wondering if someone could fill me in on what was going on.  The 
reason I am making this request is that the argument Rush was using
sounded very similiar to some of the arguments used to keep freemen
and ex-slaves out of the military during the American Civil War.

I am not staking out a position on this issue, I just would like a 
clarification on what was said.

Thanks in advance!

Jamie Hilverding
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:25:31 GMT

grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>First of all, as I said before, I base my opinion of Lee on comments that
>*he* has made in the media, not that the media has made about him.  I have
>seen interviews with him; I have seen him speak on television; I have read
>columns that he has written; and I have seen some of his movies.

Strange, we must be seeing different interviews of Spike Lee. Or maybe
he has an evil twin? I have heard him say that even though his movies
usually have a message, they are still movies.

>Second of all, I read a quote in Newsweek by the wife of the late Malcolm
>X, in which she chided Spike Lee for suggesting that black children skip
>school to see his movie.  If, as you claim, he never suggested that, I'm
>not the only one who was misinformed.  What's your source?

Spike Lee. Larry King directly asked him that question and his explanation
was perfectly plausable. If you want the transcript, call CNN.

>>I just saw an interview with Spike Lee on Larry King Live. He didn't
>>mention any of those things. I have heard other so-called black leaders
>>make such claims, but never Spike. I didn't see Mo' Better Blues
>>so I don't know if it contained racists views of Jews, but I never heard
>>it mentioned in the press anywhere and I read and watch a lot of news.

>Well, if you'd like, I can give you some direct excerpts.

Not really. Exerpts would be just as bad as quotes out of context. I'd
rather see the movie and make  up my own mind.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:31:06 GMT

rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:

>It has been much more common in the past 12 years for conservatives to
>be shouted down by liberal "guarantors of the first amendment" than
>the reverse.

>Liberals have been the sponsors of restrictive restraints on speech
>at many universities.  Actions speak louder than words........

>Liberals like to shout down speakers with opposing viewpoints.  Actions
>speak louder than words.......

Sweeping generalities obviously full of opinion with no proof. Got any
specific instances?

One of the big reasons why many of our rights are being eroded are
by products onthe CONSERVATIVE driven War on Drugs.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumni)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: joslin@pogo.isp.pitt.edu (David Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is RIGHT again
Date: 23 Nov 92 20:07:32 GMT
Organization: Intelligent Systems Program

jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>I'm sorry.  I must of missed the first time Rush was right

It was when he endorsed Clinton just before the election.

David