HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Jan 20 92 Iraq Libya invade neighbors.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:01:11 GMT

mpf1@ra.msstate.edu (Morris P. Fields) writes:

 >pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes:

 >Has anyone thought about what happened in Iran the other day:
 >	American buisness man is taken by the police
 >	because they suspect that he is a spy...
 >Sound familiar to anyone.
 >I just hope that we don't get a repeat of what happened under Carter
 >but the way it looks now it will happen sooner rather than later.

My reaction when I first heard this on the news was that the Iranians
would likely wait until immediately after the inaugeration and then
release the guy.  That's what they did with the embassy hostages on the
day that Carter left office and there's no reason to think they've
gotten any more civilized since then.  Actually, that's the only time I
can think of that I really felt sorry for old James Earl Carter.

 ===========================================================================|
 |                                      | Success is getting what you want. |
 |Don Wiggins                           | Happiness is wanting what you get.|
 |Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner       |
 ===========================================================================|
From: gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez)
Subject: Re:  Turn out the lights as yo uleave...
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:59:52 GMT

>I hope the far right wing of the Republican party (Rush included) can
>comprehend what this election said.  

>No, you do not represent the views of mainstream America.
>No, we do not care whether Clinton was in Vietnam or not.
>Yes, we do care if our President and his party has lost touch with
>reality and commmon sense.


	All this election told the Republican party is that the country will vote
for whoever is perceived to grow the economy the most.  Nothing more, nothing
less.  You say that the voters didn't care about the draft or the marital
infidelity thing?  I'll quote my father, a life long Democrat (and a Vietnam vet.) 
,"I'm gonna vote for Perot, because I don't think Clinton will be able to keep it
in his pants".  The voters didn't focus on these issues because the economy is so
weak; they voted their pocket books.  

	Just you wait if Clinton has to send us young people to war, there will
be one hell of an upheaval.  

	You were right on one count, the American people did not want a president
who had lost touch with the country.  I do believe your statment that the
Republicans are out of touch with reality and common sense shows how out of
touch with reality you are.  Which party favors a balanced budget amendment,
which party has made term limits an issue, which party opposed these two items,
which party overwhelmingly opposes the death penalty?  

						John R. Gonzalez
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Originator: usenet@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:37:42 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords

In article <1d8sniINNsb7@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>Rush held an 1-900 poll about who voted for Bush.  And Bush won by 
>some 80+%  Now, becasue Bush did not win the vote, and the only 
>people who could know about Rush's poll would be Rush's listeners, 
>this PROVES Rush's Dittohead Limbot audiance is out of touch with
>the rest of this fine land.  

All it proves is that Rush caters to a conservative audience. If it took
a 900 poll for you to figure that out, please reply to /dev/null.

>Now Robert (aka mrsmart) if you would care to think WHY Rush's poll
>came out in the 80% area, perhaps your 56% question you can answer yourself
>Otherwise, quit whining.

I can't speak for Robert, but most thinking people would know why a call-in
poll on America's highest-rated conservative radio show marked a victory
for the conservative candidates.

It has nothing to do with Dittoheads being out of touch with America. These
same folks will back the Republican in 96 (Kemp, I hope), whether he wins
or not. It is just a matter of ideology.

							- greg
-- 
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.fan.rush-limbaugh:8039 alt.politics.clinton:16067 alt.politics.bush:13337 alt.rush-limbaugh:9143
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: 4 Nov 92 18:58:59 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1d8sniINNsb7@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>
>Rush held an 1-900 poll about who voted for Bush.  And Bush won by 
>some 80+%  Now, becasue Bush did not win the vote, and the only 
>people who could know about Rush's poll would be Rush's listeners, 
>this PROVES Rush's Dittohead Limbot audiance is out of touch with
>the rest of this fine land.  
>

But, by your own standards, since over 50% of the voters did not vote 
for Clinton, but he won, does that mean that those who voted for Bill 
are out of touch with the rest of this fine land?

Ted

-- 
            

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Right To Wage War
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 12:28:47 GMT

rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
] 
] Does anyone know where the Constitution gives the Federal goverment
] the power to wage a "War on Drugs"?
] 
] Just wondering...


Its amongst the sections that has to do with
national security, and the preservation of the
union from Threats Internal and External as
clarfied in a section, which for reasons
of national security we are not at liberty
to discuss, but which clearly Must 
exist as a part of the Presidential Prerogatives
to maintain the executive office.

Further Failure to Comply with Executive Directives
will be construed and clear efforts to Overthrow the Government.

Need I say anything more?

ciao
drieux


ps: You ain't one of them PinkoRed is you?


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
Hickory, Dickory, Dock - Three Mice Ran up a Clock
The Clock Struct one, 
and the Other Two will be Upgraded In the Next Release.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8079 alt.rush-limbaugh:9177
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Percentages and such like
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:59:53 GMT
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>The problem in this election is that no one was passionately FOR
>anyone.

    I know several passionate Perot supporters, but frankly if you're 
claiming that being a passionate supporter of *any* politician is a wise 
course of action then I'm afraid I must disagree. In my cynical view of 
the world I would say that it's a grave error to place your unreserved  
trust in politicians, lawyers, insurance salesmen, or talk radio hosts.

>So let's talk about Rush: is he gonna keep on losing weight do you
>think?

    I'd say so. From the dietary info he was describing a few months back 
I'd say that if he sticks to his better eating habits then he's bound to 
lose weight.

>--
>Peter Young
>young@erim.org

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:26:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.162812.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.190227.25938@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>> 
>> 	Look, buster, this is America, and Clinton's our new president.
>> 
>> 	If you don't like it here, then you can always move to some
>> other country. It's that simple.
>> 
>> 	That's right. America: love it or leave it.
>> 
>> 	[Note: all this is a satire of right-wing "patriotic" rhetoric.]
>
>Uh, no, YOU listen here. First of all, Clinton IS NOT the president yet, so why
>don't you cool off on this 'respect' bullshit that you preach. I seriously doubt
>that you showed ANY respect for President Bush. Secondly, John has the right to
>voice whatever opinions he wants because, as you have so ingeniously pointed
>out, this is America. Remember? Liberals and free speech? It's funny how when a
>Republican is president, contempt and disrespect is fashionable. But now that
>the Dems are "up to bat" they want a little respect. Well, practice what you
>preach bud.

Heh, heh.  How 'bout you folks following Bush and, dare I say,
Quayle's example of a conciliatory, gracious tone?



And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speak
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.	   [Henry V, 4.3]
From: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:11:45 GMT
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


I know this goes back a little ways, but it has to be said. Anyone who thinks
that conservatism is out because of one election is crazy. Why else would one
suggest removing the Rush group?

The fact is, and Rush has so stated, that the election had nothing to do with 
ideology. 40% of the people who voted for Clinton actually favor less taxes,
and less govt. services. These people were really misled by the media, and 
Clinton. Clinton masqueraded as a moderate to win the election. Notice
how all the real liberal extremists were not seen till after the election.

By the way, I hear that Clinton now wants to raise the tax on gosoline. So much
for just increasing taxes on the rich. I'm sure the increase at the pump will
more than offset what pittance we get back next april 15th. Looks like the 
middle class is going to foot the bill anyway. Is anyone really suprised?
If what I hear about this gas tax increase is true, Clinton's promise about a 
tax break for the middle class has already been broken, even BEFORE he gets 
into office. 

Felix Gorney
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett)
Subject: Re: A step too far...  NOT!!!
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:58:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.053850.1507@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>But Limbaugh's antics over the past few days have gone beyond political
>commentary or even satire...they have become cruel and obnoxious, and show
>no sign of stopping.
>
>I refer to Limbaugh's treatment and commentary on the Clinton's 12 year old
>daughter.
>
>Has he nothing better to do then insult a child who has no political clout,
>who has done nothing controversial, whose only "offense" has been to be the
>daughter of Limbaugh's political nemesis?  

   Hey, he apologized for the little mix-up on last Friday's TV show, didn't
he?  And as for the picture he showed on Tuesday night's show, is it his fault
that Chelsea decided to make a strange face right at the moment that the 
camera snapped?  Cut him a break!  

>*...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  *****************

---
| Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
--------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: twiddyd@reis55.alleg.edu (David Twiddy)
Subject: Re: bleeding hearts
Organization: Allegheny College
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:49:30 GMT

In article <BD.92Nov7091351@fluent.UUCP> bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice  
Dowaliby) writes:
> I have never seen an image of Christ with his heart pierced - the
> wound is always much lower in the chest than that.  I have also
> never seen an image of Christ where he is "holding his shirt open".
> 
> Robert, what ever made you think that "bleeding-heart" was a reference
> to Christ?
> -- 
>    Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
>                          bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
>              I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
>                               DoD # 0698

	Well, Brice, the Bleeding Heart of Christ is a Roman Catholic  
symbol of the idea that through Christ's blood we are saved.  And although  
I'm not sure, I think the term "bleeding heart" comes directly from it.
--

David "master of obscurity" Twiddy <twiddyd@alleg.edu>
"Small wheel turn by the fire and rod
 Big wheel turn by the Grace of GOD"
 			-Jerry Garcia
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: btenison@eng.auburn.edu (Bruce Tenison)
Subject: Re: List of Clinton's (to be) broken promises.
Organization: Auburn University Engineering
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:00:06 GMT

Here is a few of the promises which were posted in the alt.president.clinton 
newsgroup...

----- Begin included file -----

     On the front page of the 11/9/92 New York Times, there is a
piece entitled "Clinton, After Raising Hopes, Now Tries to Lower
Expectations."  In this piece, the major campaign promises made
by President-Elect Clinton are summarized as follows.

     1.  He said he would end welfare "as we know it."
     2.  He would restore America's industrial manufacturing base so 
     that good, high-paying jobs are widespread.
     3.  He would insure that no working family would fall below the 
     poverty line.
     4.  He would make "health care a right, not a privilege," for all
     Americans without subjecting businesses to an additional tax burden
     or rationing health care.
     5.  He promised to eliminate adult illiteracy in five years.
     6.  He promised to halve the Federal deficit in four years without
     raising taxes on the middle class or significantly cutting the
     Government entitlement programs that account for the bulk of 
     Federal spending.
     7.  He promised offering a modest tax break to the middle class.
     8.  He would guarantee all Americans either a college education or
     two years of vocational training after high school, under the 
     guidance of a national service program that would "solve the 
     problems of this country while educating a generation of Americans."
     9.  Mr. Clinton pledged to keep abortion legal while "making it as
     rare as possible."
     10.  He promised to end racial, religious, geographical, and sex-
     oriented divisions in society.
     11.  He promised to safeguard environmental concerns without 
     costing jobs.
     12.  He promised to protect the rights and privileges of workers 
     without costing business growth.

     Now I see what the Democrats were so excited about: "Read
my lips -- Utopia!" 

     C. Perttunen

------- End included file ------

Bruce

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8198 alt.rush-limbaugh:9269 talk.bizarre:37316 alt.politics.elections:23166 alt.politics.bush:13566 alt.politics.clinton:16474 alt.job.gooley:70
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.job.gooley
Subject: Re: WANKERS
Date: 9 Nov 1992 02:08:43 GMT
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfalfa.intel.com

In article <1992Nov8.231546.9020@cs.ucf.edu> jinxiong@cs.ucf.edu (Chen Jinxiong) writes:
>What is a wanker?

<*plonk*>

				--Blair
				  "What do you mean, let
				   gays *into* the military?"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Milamber)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: The Rift from Here to There
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:09:22 GMT

In article <mrsmart.720887073@cs1.bradley.edu>, mrsmart@cs1.bradley.edu (Robert Knautz) writes:
|> I heard (I think) Peter Jennings use the term "Electoral Mandate" in
|> describing Clinton's win.  Can somebody please tell me what the hell
|> that is supposed to mean?  A true mandate can only come from the
|> popular vote.  If they are going to call this a mandate, then Bush
|> certainly had one in 1988, and he at least got a popular majority.  If
|> the popular press think they are going to pass someone who received
|> only a plurality(sp?) of the votes as having a mandate, they are
|> sorely mistaken.  One exit poll I saw this morning said (I was only
|> half-awake, so could be wrong) that 56% of the voters said they would
|> be concerned or afraid if Clinton was elected president.  Mandate, I
|> think not!

You're about right.  The percentage of voters afraid of Billy-boy is the total
of the percentages of people who didn't vote for him.  Bush got 38% of the
popular vote, Perot got 17% (we're at 55% already, folks!), plus all the votes
for the various other candidates found on the ballots in each of the states.
The fact that Billy-boy won with less than 50% of the popular vote is what's
really scary.

-- 
==> "You never f**king know the answer when it's important." --The Doctor <==
Joe Ogulin

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@stardock.pilot.dmg.ml.com
jogulin@apollo.stevens-tech.edu		gcs_jogulin@stevens.bitnet

Disclaimer:  The above article is solely my opinion and does not necessar-
ily reflect that of my employer.  The content is my responsibility alone.
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:27:51 GMT
Subject: Re: Jan 20 92 Iraq Libya invade neighbors.
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

> NEVER MIND BILL CLINTON's FOREIGN AFFAIRS EXPERIENCE AT THE LOCAL IHOP the WHITE HOUSE is
> DOOMED to be forever known as the INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF WAFFLES.  
> 
> NEWS FLASH----January 20,1993
> 	(Kuwait,Egypt, Israel, etc ....)Today Saddam Hussein and Mohmar Kudafi
> launched the largest one day offensive on their Middle Eastern Neighbors. 
>With the savior of the Cold War George Herbert Walker Bush now out of the White
> House, these despot dictators have found a new sense of brazen defiance. 
> President Clinton still hasn't made up his mind on what to do.  A statement
>from him given during his Inaugural addres "Well I don't know what I'm going to
> do. The Majority believes we should go to war, however my conviction lies with
> the minority that it's just not our problem.  I never did care much about
> foreign affairs anyhow."  

What an idiot.  Look, it was the end of the cold war and the
fall of Russia that will give these guys their best shot at obtaining
nuclear weapons from Russia.  Iran probably already has according
to some reports.

Also, Reagan MAY have some valid claim to have finished off Russia
in the cold war.  Bush has very little.

Bush did a good job stopping a dictator that he and the rest of
the western leaders attempted to keep in check through appeasement,
but he did not have a good plan for winning the peace.  The
roots of war ARE still present in the area, but George certainly
did nothing to dig them out.  One cannot blame him too much for this,
as it isn't clear there is much one could do.


> 
> NEWS FLASH--- June 21, 1993
> 	GLOBAL THERMO-NUCLEAR WAR!!!!!!!!!!
> 	Due to the unchecked aggression of Saddam Hussein and Mohmar Kudafi. 
>They have acquired by force a single Nuclear weapon from the Former Soviet Ship
> of the Black Sea Fleet.  They are threating to deliver it to the United States
> unless all of their demands are met.  Bill Clinton said "Change, they must
> learn to change.  And have the COURAGE to do so."  Stay tuned.

><--May seem unrealistic to some but the mid-East tyrants have the taste of war 
>    in their mouths.  

It is such typical fear-mogering, I am surprised you are not a liberal.
There is as much chance that Billy C. will be overly quick to use
the military to prove his credibility as there is that he will
do nothing.

doug
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Jan 20 92 Iraq Libya invade neighbors.
Date: 11 Nov 92 23:39:51 GMT
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech

In article <1de8j1INNmo9@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU writes:
> Doug Quarnstrom writes:
> >In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
> >> 
> >> NEWS FLASH--- June 21, 1993
> >> 	GLOBAL THERMO-NUCLEAR WAR!!!!!!!!!!
> >> 	Due to the unchecked aggression of Saddam Hussein and Mohmar Kudafi. 
> >
> >It is such typical fear-mogering, I am surprised you are not a liberal.
> >There is as much chance that Billy C. will be overly quick to use
> >the military to prove his credibility as there is that he will
> >do nothing.
>
> i agree.  that in fact may be the greater danger of a clinton presidency.
> 
> if you've never read "the sum of all fears" by tom clancy, now is an awful
> good time to do so...clancy's "president fowler" is almost prophetic in his
> similarities to president-elect clinton...and the plot is along the same lines
> as the above "news flash"...

It's always fun when people quote Tom Clancy to support their arguments.
Hey, it worked for Dan Quayle.  Considering Clancy is a homophobic
conservative technocrat he probably researched the character to look
like Clinton.  At least Clancy can spell the names of major world leaders.

> slick willie as president...might be fun on the domestic front...but his
> foreign policy may be the most dangerous we've seen in the white house yet...

Ooooh, scary ... you weren't participating when the God Ron was elected,
were you?  You sound like a lot of my liberal friends did back then.

*********************************************************************
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