HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.)
Subject: Re: The Environment
Organization: Bowling Green State University B.G., Oh.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:48:31 GMT

Oh, oh! Can I handle this one?  Please?

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
> 
>>>Bush broke his word and Clinton lied.
>>That's right.  Bush broke ONE campaign promise.  So sue him.  That's
>>probably an all-time LOW for a politician!
> 
> Huh? One lie? What planet have you been on for the last four years. I
> can refer to several lies Bush has made in the past. He claimed
> he wanted to be the Educational President. Based on his actions, he lied.
> He claimed he wanted to be the Environmental President. Again, by his 
> very own actions, he lied. He also lied about Iran-Contra and Iraq-gate.
> 

Bush claimed he WANTED to be the educational president.  By your own
argument and statement, he didn't say he'd SUCCEED in being
the educational president.  Therefore, purely by logic and your own
argument presented, he didn't lie, it's quite probable that he really
DID want to be the educational president.  Perhaps things (such as
Congress, not a statement of fact, but of possibility) kept him too
busy with other things to really succeed in this desire.  Same can
be said for "Environmental President".  As an addition, I had a few
problems last year trying to get a grant for school, because of a
conflict between the D.V.A. (Dept. of Veteran's Affairs, formerly
the V.A.) and the school.  Who finally helped me receive my grant
when all else had failed?  A Republican Congressman...

Now about that Iran-Contra stuff... maybe he did, and maybe he didn't.
I can't say beyond any doubt.  I can say this.  In a society of
innocent until proven guilty, he's still innocent.  Just because one
person, or even a group of people say things, doesn't mean those
things are true ... until proven.  If one wishes to express that
someone has lied about something, please have all facts present
and a logically concluded argument to present the case before
blatently stating "Mr. X lied about Y."  And, even if he DID lie
about it, that brings Mr. Bush up to two lies during his entire
presidency.  Think Mr. Clinton is going to get off so easy in four
years?  He's promised WAY too many things to too many people to
be able to give everything he's promised to everyone.

Just an advocate for truth, facts, and logic,

Jim

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 01:31:35 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: Engle

In article <ged1.721429028@crux1.cit.cornell.edu> ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle) writes:
>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.

Seems to me you could benefit greatly by taking a bit of your own advice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...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.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: eisimps@cie.uoregon.edu (Eileen Simpson)
Subject: Re: Witch Hunt Time!!
Organization: University of Oregon Campus Information Exchange
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 07:52:45 GMT

In article <Eey7w2G00WAwE3I3Zi@andrew.cmu.edu> Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.rush-limbaugh: 4-Nov-92 Witch Hunt Time!!
>Jared Dahl@rchland.vnet. (680)
>
>> To those who thought Bush had a chance...(Simon Booth)
>
>>   HA!
>
>> Let's make sure that there is no pardon for George, Ronny
>> and the rest of the gang.  I say we put them behind bars
>> where they belong.
>
>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?

There were a number of convictions, including a number for Ollie North, if
you will recall.

What happened was that all those awful, liberal rules of criminal law that
allow the guilty to go free despite overwhelming evidence against them were
invoked by our law-and-order boys on appeal. They got their convictions
overturned by the same technicalities that any drug dealer would use.  The
same technicalities that they condemn for everyone else.

Pretty lucky that the Dems in Congress resisted the Republicans' criminal
code reform--otherwise there would be a lot of Republican officials who
would have personal experience with the prisons system right now.
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
In-reply-to: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu's message of 9 Nov 1992 19:45:21 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<YOUNG.92Nov9124823@ssdd475a.erim.org> <1dmf4hINNloo@spool.mu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 10 Nov 92 10:49:49

In article <1dmf4hINNloo@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:

>   If CT was a liar, is that grounds to say 'No stairway....denied' and
>   not allow him on the court?  Or should he express his opinion
>   and be branded 'not an open-thinker, thus No stairway....denied'?

I can't believe you would ask this.  He lied under oath to a Senate
committee and you don't think this should be grounds for denial?  From
one hoping to be the final arbiter of the law?  So then he should,
what, kind of wink the next time he is confronted with a case that has
anything to do with perjury?  I don't understand.

Or is this another case of a humor impaired liberal missing the
satirical point?

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:24:31 GMT

In <1992Nov4.210337.14766@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Dr. Norman J. LaFave writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.190713.18501@henson.cc.wwu.edu> brian h. harper,
>n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu writes:
>>Yes, a mandate to not have Bush, but using this logic, the majority (57%)
>>voted against Clinton. That, too is a mandate. Course it won't matter
>>because he won. Does it feel good to have a Pres that the majority of
>>voters
>>don't want?

>You do realise how counterproductive, pointless, and devicive
>this discussion is, don't you? We have work to do dammit!
>Help us get it done.

Amen to that.  I make it no secret that I bitterly opposed Clinton before the
election and that I feared a Clinton presidency.  And while I am still uneasy
about the future under Clinton, I plan to give him the benefit of any doubts
I may have and hope to join with others to create a better future for *all*
of us.  This certainly is a time to abandon partisan rhetoric, roll up our
sleeves and attack the problems that face us.  I only hope that Clinton tries
to do this without feeling a need for a federal program for everything.

Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
Don't blame me!  I voted Libertarian.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: mcgead@isaac.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary)
Subject: Re: This is OUTRAGEOUS...
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 07:10:19 GMT

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 
>* Willie Horton outside prison
>* Jerry Brown having Earth citizenship 
>* Gloria Steinem chasing men 
>* Madonna teaching chastity 
>* Jack Kervorkian doing CPR  
>* Earth First! running a logging company
>* Fidel Castro joining Amnesty International
>* The Sacramento Kings at the NBA Playoffs
>* Dr. Spock giving corporal punishment 
>* David Duke in the NAACP 
>* Van Halen teaching classical music
>* Molly Yard in a swimsuit
> 
 * Stephendennis Hallcheney posting something intelligent.



-- 
Darren McGeary -  mcgead@rpi.edu          Freedom of religion means freedom 
PRO-CHOICE - THE AMERICAN WAY             FROM religion!!
Banish religion from government!          -These are my opinions. They just
Atheists Unite!!                           happen to also be the right ones.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date:  9 Nov 92 15:34:48 GMT

In <1dl608INN5gr@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:

>In article <grendel.721285610@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>He'd be a hell of a lot better choice than Thomas was.  The Court is supposed
>>to be balanced.  Cuomo, a liberal, would do better than Thomas to balance out
>>the ideology of the Court.

>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.

Yes...especially since, unlike the executive and legislative branches, the
judicial branch of the Supreme Court has no term limits.  I could deal with
a Republican president (and have!) for a four year term, because I know
there's a chance he'll not be reelected.  Likewise a GOP-controlled Congress.
The Court is something else entirely.  I don't want it liberal-controlled;
I don't think that would be fair.  But neither do I want it the way it is--
with two liberals, Blackmun and White, who are on their way out, two or
three swing voters, and the rest rabidly reactionary.  Brrrrr!
From: stassen@alc.com (Chris Stassen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A sad day for America
Date: 5 Nov 92 20:40:46 GMT
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose

Gary James Patalsky <gp2f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> I say America will have double digit inflation, interest rates and
> unemployment by June.

Inflation is low and likely to go higher, but don't bet the house on
reaching 10%.  Slightly higher inflation might not be a bad sign for
the economy; it's hard to achieve fast growth without it.

Double digits for mortgage (interest) rates are not far away.  30-year
fixed mortgage rates are over 8% now (8.3 as of today).  This is the
one prediction of yours that wouldn't be surprising if it were right.

Unemployment is, IMO, likely to stay about the same or go down.  It 
would require that the Clinton administration will do something REALLY
dumb (like shutting down much of the military and defense industry
without shifting the money to creating jobs elsewhere).

======

Today's "San Jose Mercury News" carried a feature in the business section
called "How to survive Clintonomics" (they endorsed Clinton, by the way,
so they're not speaking from a position of bias against his policies).
Their advice (DISCLAIMER: I don't endorse this advice):

1. Get a fixed-rate mortgage; rates are bound to go up.  The Merc says
   that if you plan to stay at least four years, it is probably worth
   the money to refinance if your variable loan can't be converted.

2. Invest in "growth" companies; they ought to outperform the stock
   market in general because they will benefit most from the incentives
   in Clinton's plan.

3. Hedge against inflation if a good opportunity arises; for reasons
   above it is likely to go higher.  Traditional hedges (such as
   precious metals) may perform well under higher inflation rates.

4. Have a long-term strategy.  One needn't worry too much about the
   administration as long as one is content to invest for the long haul.
   Investing "not to lose" generally beats "trying to make a killing."

> If Clinton could not run the small state of Arkansas,
> what is he going to do to America?

Actually, Clinton did reasonably well in Arkansas.  However, his prime
means of causing job growth was attracting industry from other parts of
the country (by being more "industry-friendly" than other states).  That
strategy doesn't scale up to a national level.
--
Chris Stassen			408-943-0630			stassen@alc.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE - NOT!!
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 07:57:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.221927.681@Cadence.COM> phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:

>
>Well -- you could look at it another way: some 62% of all voters voted for
>someone OTHER than George "Herbert Hoover" Bush.
>

This comparison between Bush and Hoover is getting ridiculous. When Hoover
was voted out in 1932, unemployment was around 25 per cent. I am 
extremely sceptical that that is the case today. Bush is no more Hoover
than Dan Quayle is JFK. (and thank goodness for that.)
>
>>Secondly...The democrats, on balance, lost ground in Congress.
>
>Huh?  I though that the Dems GAINED ground in Congress.  Didn't they reach
>60 members in the Senate -- enough to break a Republican filibuster?  I call
>that quite a significant gain.
>


Say what?  The republicans picked up 9 seats in the House of Representatives.
The Democrats picked up one (1) uno seat in the Senate, bringing their 
total to 58, not enough to stop filibusters. And, besides, filibusters have
been a tool of the dems, by and large. Who do you think is nickna[ed Mr. 
Filibuster?

Answer?
"Who is Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH)"

D.W.


"A day without sunlight is night."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9279 talk.environment:4540
From: ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu (DANIEL M. DEOCAMPO)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.environment
Subject: Re: You have to question that the media is/isn't liberal?
Date: 9 Nov 92 12:03:00 GMT
Organization: Tufts University - Medford, MA
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov8.161303.3098@nic.csu.net>, jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes...

>Ok, maybe I will leave this in.  Well, then, my response is insulting to them.
>And I am a scientist!  But I don't believe in evolution.  As you are probably
>thinking right now, who says that all scientists are right?  IF they are 
>wasting their time, that's too bad.  I've I'm wrong for believing in
>Creationism, that's too bad.

I'm just curious - what do you study and how do reconcile Creationsim with that
study?

> 
>>	How is the Sierra Club "extreme"?
>Being from California, I should know.  Some of their leaders are environ-
>mentalist extremist tree-huggers.

That doesn't answer the question.  They are one of the most centrist
environmental groups.  Any more conservative and you start talking about
wise-users.

> 
>>	"Liberal" media? That's a time-honored right-wing charge. 
>Ok, but you think they AREN'T?  

If they weren't, why did they bash Duke's head in the last time around?

>Then why is it that we never heard anything
>good about Reagan/Bush economics in this election,

Largely because it flopped in the medium term.  This says nothing about
liberalism or conservatism.  They merely reported the recession/depression
we're in.

> and all we heard about 
>Clinton/Bore was how they were going to save America by taxing the rich?

How do you think Bush got elected?  I think this time around the media did a
better job.  They harshed Clinto/Gore just as much as Bush (see tax & spend
liberal, draft, pot, Hillary, Mr. Ozone, etc...).

>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.
>--------------------------------------------------

I guess Bushy didn't have the big MO. Thank God! :')

Daniel Deocampo                          Undergrad (I have an excuse for    
ddeocamp@pearl.tufts.edu                            any silly comments.)
                                         Department of Geology
---------------------|                   Environmental Studies Program
"Be gneiss to me,    |                   Tufts University
 I'm going through   |
 a lot of schist."   |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: keithg@boi.hp.com (Keith Glasson)
Subject: Re: i say kill bush
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:28:38 GMT
Organization: work
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]


: 
: I doubt that they are wrong. One minor point however, there is the outside
: possibility that someone gained access to his account and decided to
: post something that could result in big trouble for him - I have no clue
: if this is the case but I find it unbelievable that anyone would be
: so stupid as to threaten the life of the president in a public forum
: such as this....
: 
: 
: 			gln
: 
: 
	This guy probably still believes in free speech. Honest 
	mistake, I'd say.


	-keith
Organization: Materials Science and Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 14:13:53 -0500 
From: James William Stepanek <js43+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: when is the show on in Pgh.

I've looked through the TV-guide , but didn't see a listing for the Rush
Limbaugh show in Pittsburg. I would appreciate it if someone could tell
me when it is on. I think I would like to watch some liberal
bashing(especially after this disasterous election).
James Stepanek
esp
"Just think of how stupid the average american is, and realize that half
of them are dumber than that."
-George Carlin
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:18:38 GMT

marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
>>It was interesting hearing Rush deny that a) the Republican party hase
>>taken over by the Religious Right and b) it doesn't matter anyway.  At

>Also note:  Rush had almost no "religious adds" on his show two years
>ago.

    This is true.

>  Now, one can hear adds for tapes/books to set you on the moral
>path sold by people traditionly associated with the "religious right".

    This is marginally true but borders on being circular logic. The only 
book that I hear advertised on a regular basis is Rush's book, and the only 
tapes I've heard advertised have been those foreign language lessons and 
Rush's "Word Power" commercials which aren't any different now than they 
were 2 years ago. It may be that the ads to which you're referring are the 
ones for things like _World_ magazine that Bill Bennett is pushing or 
another spot that featured Pat Robertson. I think there were a couple of 
others, but no tapes or books that I can recall (not even _Dianetics_).

>Also note Rush is inot the show for the money. Now, when has Rush bit the
>hand that feeds him?

    I thought that some of his jabs at Ross Perot were a little unkind.
After all, like most other political comedians, Rush has reaped the benefits 
of Ross Perot's candidacy.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jeff.beaty@rose.com (jeff beaty)
Subject: Rush Limbaugh Sucks
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:15:46 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 11-10-92 18:12


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

He can't be...Media includes television...Stern does not have a 
national nightly television show...but seeing as how you are a fan of 
Stern, I can see how you missed this simple and obvious point.

jeff.beaty@rose.com (Jeff Beaty)
---
   RoseReader 1.70 R002497: Tagline still not available.
   RoseMail 2.00 : Usenet: Rose Media - Hamilton (416) 575-5363
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:35:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1dhu7nINNl06@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.184705.198@hsh.com> paul@hsh.com writes:
>>> But the hypocrisy is what I'm concerned about; the hypocrisy of people who
>>      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>"Hypocrisy"?  Oh, I can't let this one go without a pithy comment. :)
>>If these things aren't an issue, as you seem to be claiming, then why:
>>  -- did Clarence Thomas get treated the way he did?
>
>Ok, I'll take the easy one.
>
>George Bush said "Clarence Thomas was BEST qualified for the job."

Would you believe, ``best qualified that could get through the liberal 
judiciary committee?''

Ted


-- 
            

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9516 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8442
From: aaiken@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Please READ!
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:42:34 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


	Do not follow-up to any article cross-posted to talk.bizarre

	These are not serious articles, and they don't even merit
	a response.  Still, the intent of the poster is not to
	promote intelligent discussion, but rather to provoke
	people.

	This being USENet, the best method of dealing with these articles 
	is simply to ignore them.  


Thanks,

Andrew Aiken
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: The Limbaugh-Clinton Constant
Keywords: weight
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:47:39 GMT


	Over the next four years, I will test the following hypothesis:

(Rush Limbaugh's weight) + (Bill Clinton's weight) = constant

	I am assuming a 95% confidence  interval to allow for sudden national
crises.  I doubt that President Clinton will be able to exercise sufficiently
while in office to keep his weight problem in check.  Some predictions regarding
the Clinton Presidency:


Jan 1993:  Clinton 210, Limbaugh 270

June 1993: Clinton 220, Limbaugh 258
	   
Feb. 1994: Clinton 240, Limbaugh 242
	Time Magazine cover story: "Is America Getting Fatter?"

Oct. 1994: Clinton 257, Limbaugh 236
	Cosmo declares: "Thin is out, and FAT IS IN!"

Dec. 1994: Clinton 265, Limbaugh 229
	Playboy's Miss December has measurements 40-34-47.

Aug. 1995: Clinton 280, Limbaugh 210
	Newsweek wonders at the continued success of the Rush Limbaugh Show,
	despite the fact that Rush is "too thin for T.V."

Jan. 1996: Clinton 287, Limbaugh 208
	President Clinton's chair collapses during an interview with Larry King.
	Initial media response to the Republican Presidential candidates:
		"Clinton is a shoo-in because he has more ... gravitas."

August 1996: Clinton 300, Limbaugh 190
	President Clinton is 20 minutes late for his nomination acceptance
	speech at the 1996 Democratic Convention because he becomes stuck in
	his hotel doorway.

Oct. 1996: Clinton 305, Limbaugh - a slim 185
	Time cover story: "Is Clinton TOO Fat?  America Searches for a
		Slimmer Leader"


---

Andrew Aiken