HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: FAQ: Rush Limbaugh Newsgroups
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:03:02 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <1992Oct27.125035.28527@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> greg_b
radt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>In article <1992Oct25.144748.44117@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> ,
>attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>
>>                     Rush Limbaugh's 35 Undeniable Truths
>
>It's good to see these posted from time to time.  Some of us need to
>be reminded just how off the wall Rush can be.  I thought I'd take my
>turn at pointing up some of the absurdities.
>
>>10)  Communism Kills.
>
>Socialism kills,
>   Imperialism kills,
>      Capitalism kills,
>         What's the point here?
What's your point?  All government kills?  Then what about anarchy?  Surely
it isn't viable either.  If anarchy was permissable, I'd kill liberals.

>>11)  Neither the US, nor anyone else, imposes freedom on the peoples
>>of other nations.

>Freedom is never imposed.  
I think that's his point.  Read it again.

>>18)  There is no such thing as war atrocities.
>>19)  War itself is an atrocity.
>
>Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?
No, you're seeing a subpoint followed by its point.

>>20)  There is a God.
>
>But is he (or she) so vain as to demand our worship and/or obedience?
I wouldn't call that "vanity".

>>24)  Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women
>access to the
>>	mainstream of society.
>
>Ergo, antifeminists are dedicated to denying unattractive women
>access to the mainstream of society.
With reverse logic, but anyone can do that to any issue.  Make a point.

>>26)  The only difference between Mikhail Gorbachev and previous
>Soviet leaders,
>>	is that Gorbachev is alive.
>
>Is this one even worth commenting on?  Probably Rushs alltime worst
>prediction!
Undeniable Truths of Life, not Predictions.

-- Jennifer "I just LOVE pissing you guys off without using expletives"

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 01:25:22 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: The Environment
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <BxHH23.CB@andy.bgsu.edu> jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>
>[some delted stuff here...]
>>
>> Gee, this argument is awfully SLICK.  He didn't *promise*, he just
>
>Why, thank you!  :-)

Don't mention it :-)

>
>> *wanted* to be...  Maybe he didn't have time to succeed, and I for
>> one am quite glad he didn't.  "Success" on the environmental front
>> from Bush probably would have been getting old-growth forest "redefined"
>> so that it's range would be cut in half, much like he did for wetlands.
>
>Well, I can't say much about wherever you're at, but here in
>Northwestern Ohio, our wetlands are doing quite well.  In fact,
>in the past four years they've become even more protected.  This
>includes more strict laws protecting that which already was
>considered wetlands, and covers about three times more than was
>originally protected from being encroached upon by business and
>private housing, mostly along the coast of Lake Erie from the
>east side of Toledo out to the Port Clinton area.  Much of this
>happened as few as three years ago.  As few as two years
>ago, the Army Corps of Engineers were here in the area helping
>to clean up and restore a couple of our small creeks, making them
>more habitable, as well. Perhaps this is a case of the media not
>covering good news?  I don't know, I just know that it has
>happened that way here.

I'm certainly not going to say "read my lips, all wetlands were ruined"
under Uncle George.  I'm glad to hear of successes.  However, as you
are undoubtably aware, pointing to a single example does not constitute
proof that the entire program is a success.  

I'm also aware that there are some glaring inequities in the wetlands
laws.  Certainly those facing losses under the laws ought to be
compensated for them under eminent domain doctrine.

Back to the point, however:  when our man Bush spouted off about wanting
to be [known as] the environmental president, he certainly misled a 
whole bunch of people.  Maybe you don't call this a lie, but in my book
it is.  He misled the people on a variety of fronts, and this was
perceived by the people as even more of a character flaw than anything
he could dredge up on Willie.  Hence, the results of the election.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: President Clinton
Date: 4 Nov 92 04:25:40 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

O.K.  I am possibly (arguably) the most conservative regular poster 
to this group.  It is time to give President Clinton a chance to make 
his policies work.  Please, let's not bash him for campaign promisses, 
let's wait and see how his policies work.  

Bill Clinton is now my president, and I desire to show honor to that 
office by witholding criticism until (if) his policies fail.

But believe me...I will hound him unmercifully if (when) his policies 
fail...If that failure is his fault.

Ted


-- 
            

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
From: rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 9 Nov 92 16:03:42 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Vanderbilt University Mathematics Department

In article <1dl608INN5gr@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>The court is to act as a balance beteen the congress and the prez.  No
>where is it said the couurt is supposed to BE balanced,
> although I would think it would
>be in the best long term interest of the land that it be balanced.
>
>
>-- 
>Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
>MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
>my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
>   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.


   It would be better still if the Court, whether comprised of liberals,
conservatives, undecideds, whatever, left their personal political
desires out of it and just did their job of interpreting the Constitution,
instead of trying to enact legislation by judicial decree.


John Rickert					    Quis custodiet
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu		    ipsos custodes?
							-- Juvenal
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:53:06 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

In <1992Nov5.172934.25850@uts.cc.wayne.edu>, Thomas Richard Stevenson writes:

>marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:

>>n article <1992Nov4.215259.2052@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu
>>>and again, the electoral college is how we elect the president; popular vote
>>>is NOT. dont blame the press for this.
>>>Right. Blame our congress for not amending the constitution to eliminate the
>>>electoral college and go to a popular vote with a run-off between the top 2
>>>if no one wins a majority. That way the voters will have elected a pres. by
>>>a majority vote. Call your congressmen and demand that they support such an
>>>amendment! Get involved!

>>The top 2?  So why not come out and say that we sould only have
>>Republicans and Democrats and no one with a better (or differnent idea
>>even) has a chance?  Good move.  If Clinton gets such passed, Bush
>>is correct....that IS slick.

>This is an example of someone trying to prove a point by selective reading.
>He said that the top two would be picked ONLY IF no one wins a majority.
>This does not preclude third party's from running, and being one of the
>top two. This year we've proven that a third party person can do very
>well. There is no reason to assume that next time one couldn't come in
>second, and in a run off come in first. In fact, this might give third
>party people a better chance at winning.

Given current election laws, I think that is the only real hope for a third
party.  It elminates the "lesser of two evils" vote.  I personally know *many*
people who would have voted for Perot, Marrou or other candidates if they knew
that they could have a meaningful vote against their most hated candidate
later.

I know many Republicans who *wanted* to vote for Marrou, but almost all of them
voted for Bush because they wanted to hurt Clinton.  With a run-off system,
they could safely vote for Marrou, knowing that when he doesn't make the
runoff they could *then and only then* vote for Bush.  That would draw serious
interest in third parties, it would remove the "lesser of two evils" voting
mentality that most voters hold dearly.  I think it would be a positive change.
But then again, I'm a Libertarian, so I'm biased.  I don't even think that all
of the Marrou votes have been counted yet!

Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
Don't blame me!  I voted Libertarian.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: November 3, the day Rush dies!
In-reply-to: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu's message of 9 Nov 92 20:31:49 PST
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Nov9.203151.3123@nic.csu.net>
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:37:57

Jennifer, you're losin' it.  What was that about?

By the way, don't buy American cars because all the American car
companies just take our money and ship it overseas to their European,
Mexican or Far Eastern partners.  I ought to know, since I'm from
Detroit.  Those car company officers are a bunch of foreign agents.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: If character isn't an issue ...
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:26:39 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <1992Oct28.065803.1769@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mzhao@magnus.acs.o
hio-state.edu (Min Zhao) writes:
>   Because Character is never an issue with Danny boy. He has not matured 
>enough to have his character judged. He is just a baby. And we don't want to
At least he has served his country militarily.

>have a baby in charge. Why we don't want to have Danny boy in the White House 
Oh come on.  Gooo gooo ga ga would be the most interesting State of the Union 
speech in history yet.

>has nothing to do with character, unlike the case of George King Bush, who
>absolutely has no character, no principle and no clue. In George's case,
>it's the character thing. That political opportunist is the shame of our
>political system.  
Proof?  Please?
Let's get out of the habit of wild accusations.  Flames to /dev/null.

Jennifer, Republican Extraordinaire, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now that it's over, I've received 5:1 e-mail.  5 pro-Bush, isn't this great?
we're gonna win in '96 for sure! to each 1 pro-Clinton nyah.  In light of
this, I still don't understand how he got elected.
--------------------------------------------------
mandate, v.  Democrats saying, "All right! It's ours again! Let's SCREW 'EM!!"
landslide, n.  Election by 40% of the vote, 5 points above 2nd place.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Let the Blame Games BEGIN!
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:03:04 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

dash@skyy.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (O.P.P) writes:
>    
> 
>         LET THE BLAME GAMES BEGIN!!!!!!!
> 
>     Top ten reason why I lost, and lost BIG!     
>                 by George Bush
> 
>      10.  It's  not my fault, the American People
>           wouldn't put enough Republicans in congress.
> 
>       9.  If only the Cold war could have ended later,
>           like right after my convention!
> 
>       8.  Those idiots sunk me at the convention. I
>           told Pat Robertson and Patrick Bucannon 
>           not to shoot off at the mouth.
> 
>       7.  The Federal Reserve. I wanted lower interest
>           rates 10 years ago.
> 
>       6.  Ross Perot.  Cost me victory in 8 states.
> 
>       5.  It's not my fault, I didn't have line item veto.
> 
>       4.  Dick Darman. What an idiot!
> 
>       3.  Jim Baker.  Why didn't he run my campaign better.
> 
>       2.  Congress!! Wouldn't give me my capital gains cut.
> 
>                      and the Number 1 Reason why I lost....
> 
>       1.  THE MEDIA.   They have been meddling in Republican
>                        affairs ever since NIXON was in office.

Oh, come on. Bush's number one reason why he didn't win is that,
intentionally or not, he did everything in his power to lose the election.
He adopted campaign themes that turned off the voters, and DROPPED several
promising avenues just when they were beginning to pay off. He held on to
Darman and Brady even though those two men had been the architects of the
budget debacle of 1990 and the recession that followed. 

He lost because, after breaking his "Read My Lips" pledge, he tried to
paint Slick Willie as being "untrustworthy". True, but a classic case of
the pot calling the kettle black; it looked hypocritical, and it was. He
never even TRIED to counter the Clinton/Gore lies about the economy being
"the worst in 50 years". 

I often write, only half in jest, that Bush is a "Stealth Liberal", a
"deep-penetration mole from the far left" whose mission, for the past 12
years, has been to infiltrate and destroy the Republican party and the
conservative movement in general. If that had really been his goal, he
could not have done better. He campaigned as the heir to Reagan, and
easily defeated Mondull; he then governed just as Fritz would have, and
with the same results vis-a-vis the economy. 

And THAT'S why Bush lost. We shoulda voted for MonDull; at least, that
way, we'd heva known what we were getting!

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Date: 13 Nov 92 20:04:31 GMT
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works

psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:

> Society does offer an alternative to pregnancy - it's called abstinence.
> Abstinence is acceptable and reasonable behavior to expect from people who 
> don't want to have a baby, whereas killing the child is not acceptable in 
> the same way that neglecting a child when adoption is available isn't 
> acceptable.

Golly, Wally, another member of the Junior Anti-Sex League.  Here's a
free clue, Paul.  _Society_ doesn't offer abstinence as an alternative
to pregnancy.  Humor-impaired, anal-retentive control freaks, possibly
religiously motivated, offer abstinence as an alternative to pregnancy.

Seeing as how each and every one of us has a feedback loop between our
brains and our gonads programmed into us that recurses about every ten
seconds, I see no need to apologize for our fascination with sex.  Also,
the psychological damage that comes when the sex drive is repressed or
suppressed is well documented.  And considering that many readers of
this forum (talk.abortion) are married or in committed relationships,
your advice is just plain silly.

In other words, YOU CAN HAVE MY SEX DRIVE WHEN YOU PRY IT FROM
MY DEAD, COLD HANDS!!!

Hope that helps.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  / standard disclaimers
  "If God had meant for women to be doctors, He would have fixed it
      so men could have babies!" -- from the TV comedy 'Dream On'
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:09:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <1992Nov10.154146.3064@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <grendel.721369415@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <YOUNG.92Nov9124823@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>>
>>>All this talk about whether Clarence Thomas is right or left and that
>>>the court should be balanced is total nonsense.  There is no written
>>>rule that demands a balance.  The president's job is to pack as much
>>
>>No, no written rule.  But since the Court is the one branch of government
>>whose members cannot be removed from office (not without a GREAT deal of fuss)
>>it is in the interest of the public to have it be as ideologically balanced
>>as possible.  That was the original intent, before political parties came
>>on the scene.

>Wow!  Listen to this!  On the one hand, you have a liberal crying that 
>the court should be balanced.  Read that, more to the left. 	

Of course more to the left, tweedledumb.  It sure as hell isn't going to be
balanced by adding another Scalia or Thomas.

 When the 
>supreme court has been tilted to the left, it wrote law by judicial fiat, 
>definitely not the original intent of the constitution. 

I argue that a balanced court, _not_ a liberal-packed or a conservative-packed
court, would best serve the interests of the people.  Balancing Congress
doesn't work that way, and it doesn't work to have the executive and legislativebranches balance each other out; we've seen what happens, and it's called
gridlock.  On the other hand, balancing the court would ensure that decisions
are actually given some thought, rather than simply passed through as part
of an ideological agenda.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Clinton's promises
From: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:49:31 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

I caught Rush's TV show last night.  He has promised to compile all of
Clinton's campaign promises and keep track of which ones are broken.
This would be a good thing to do, if it were done fairly.

He went on to give an example of a Clinton promise.  Clinton, according
to Rush, promised to put Cuomo on the supreme court.  But -- correct me
if I'm wrong -- Clinton never promised any such thing.  Clinton only
commented that the supreme court should have appointees "of the
intellectual stature of Mario Cuomo."

Agree or disagree with that sentiment as you will.  But it is *not* 
a promise to nominate Cuomo to the supreme court.   (I do hope that
Clinton does better than Cuomo in his nominations.  But you can
bet that he'll give us someone more qualified than Thomas.)

If Clinton has said anything more than this about Cuomo, I'd like to
hear about it.  If not, Rush is up to his usual twisting of the truth.

(Rush also promised to have a special show to evaluate Clinton's first
100 days.  Let's just hope he compares them with Bush's first 100 days.
Anyone remember that fiasco?)

David
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle)
Subject: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Summary: Engle and his tactics
Keywords: Engle
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:57:08 GMT

Yep, I see that Engle is once again criticizing and using those damn 
greater-than signs.  Come on nate, stop criticizing and start thinking about
what is going to help.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Subject: Re: Clinton's promises
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:20:29 GMT

In article <9170@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin) writes:
# He went on to give an example of a Clinton promise.  Clinton, according
# to Rush, promised to put Cuomo on the supreme court.  But -- correct me
# if I'm wrong -- Clinton never promised any such thing.  Clinton only
# commented that the supreme court should have appointees "of the
# intellectual stature of Mario Cuomo."

Hey, I heard Madonna was free.

(Actually, he just used Cuomo when asked for an example.  I don't think he
mentioned why Cuomo would be considered.  His 'intellectual stature' indeed.)

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9228 alt.politics.bush:13515
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Witch Hunt Time!!
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:52:29 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov5.215730.7269@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.192612.16343@odin.corp.sgi.com> archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully) writes:
>>In <Eey7w2G00WAwE3I3Zi@andrew.cmu.edu> ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>>*On behalf of Ollie North, I laugh in your face.
>>*They've had 5 years to get indictments.  They've gotten how many?  How
>>*many turned into convictions?
>>Its very difficult to get in indictments (let alone convictions) when 
>>the evidence that the defense hasn't already shredded is controlled by 
>>their backers.
>Uh, get your facts straight - or did you perhaps forget that it was a 
>Democratic Congress who gave Oliver North immunity? And that is was Democratically-
>appointed Lawrence Walsh who screwed up in covering his own ass in shielding 
>his sources from that Congressionally-administered immunity?

(John, no matter if you mean Democratic in the political (as in 
democratic party) or in the type of political system (aka Not a Communist)
sense.   The comment still works)

Does your 'straight facts' negate any "wrongdoing" on the part of
the parties involved?  No where in your 'straight facts' are you
saying what ollie did was "right" you have said that the Congress
gave ollie immunity, and thus he avoided some "worse fate" NOT that
he avoided some "worse fate" becasue he was not guilty. 

(in the system sense now)
The Democratic system is not perfect, but it IS the best about, given
the size of what it rules over.  And sometimes the system makes mistakes.
It will let the guilty go free more often than crush the innocent.
(or at least that's what  it's supposed to do.....)


>
>-- 
>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>                           | Support the coup!
>                           |
>jrs@netcom.com             | 


-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh Sucks
Keywords: Rush Limbaugh Sucks
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:45:37 GMT

In <Nov.9.19.44.28.1992.25282@andromeda.rutgers.edu> graff@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Eugene M Graff) writes:

>Rush Limbaugh Sucks--Howard Stern is the King of ALL Media

<BZZT> Wrong answer.

But thanks for playing our game. We have lovely parting gifts for you!

Johnny, tell him what he's won....
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh