HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: To JRS et.al-coexist
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 00:21:18 GMT

In article <92310.122529ADB103@psuvm.psu.edu> <ADB103@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> By the way I think John Switzer's comment on starting a coup is one of the 
> most un-patriotic, un-american, self-righteous statements ever made.  
>Nobody would be more incensed by that remark than President Bush.  
>His conciliatory manner
>has been most honorable. John, you have no honor.  
> Perhaps if you started liste
>ning to all sides of an issue, instead of blindly 
>following your demigod, Rush,
>you might achive a higher level of conciousness.
>   Thanks, Ed Beecher

It's true, it's true! Liberals have no sense of humor whatsoever, but what's 
news about that. Perhaps I have no honor, but at least I do have a sense of 
humor, not to mention an editor that knows about carriage-returns and 
linefeeds. 

However, I am irritated that because I don't agree with YOU, I'm supposed
to be unpatriotic and don't listen to all sides of the issue. I do listen
to all sides; I simply make the right choice. As to achieving a higher 
level of consciousness, if that means supporting liberalism and socialism,
I'll prefer to stay on this plane of reality, thank you.
-- 
John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
                           | Support the coup!
CompuServe: 74076,1250     |
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   |
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal
From: bender@riscee.pko.dec.com (Patricia Bender)
Subject: Re: Liberals want to remove Admendment #10? (was Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:51:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.222413.18127@csc.ti.com> dp writes:
>
>Only partially true.  The federal limitations on the states were first
>introduced in the 14th Amendment in order to force the abolition of slavery
>from the federal level.  It wasn't until the SC began linking the 14th
>amendment to other parts of the Constitution (began in 1947) that the
>limits on states' rights had been expanded beyond simply restrictions on
>slavery.  It was this link that has resulted in such decisions as the removal
>of prayer from public schools (1963).  (Remember, the First Amendment
>actually only mentions the (Federal) Congress; not the states, not school
>boards, not any other agency or institution of government!)  This is one of
>the hazards of a President appointing SC Justices using a litmus test (these
>judges had to pass FDR's test regarding the constitutionality of his social
>programs).
>
>The Justices that FDR appointed (after his unsuccessful attempts to "fire" the
>Justices that kept finding his social programs unconstitutional) re-defined
>the SC decision process.  Suddenly gone was the search for authorial intent as
>one of the main means of reaching an SC decision.  Suddenly gone as well were
>a number of the SC decisions upon which ~170 years of previous SC had been
>built.  With one decision in 1947, the SC gave itself the ability and
>precedent to eliminate ANY state law, policy, or practice that it deems to
>fall under the cover of the 14th Amendment.  Sound a bit cynical?  So did the
>possibility of linking the 1st and 14th Amendments prior to the SC's landmark
>decision in 1947.
>
[much removed]

Ya know, it wasn't until I was half way into this article that I realized
that SC stood for Supreme Court, not South Carolina.  See, ya can find a
good laugh even when ya aren't looking for it. =)  {Yes, it has been a long
week.  Why do you ask?}


patricia
 

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:00:36 GMT

Well, I fell for this practical joke.  I have a sense of humor but
this is a bit much. My mailbox is now flooded with test message replies.


Simon



Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Shrub goes 0 for 3
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 20:57:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct23.162346.6697@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>Keep in mind Clinton's response when asked if he had ever smoked marijuana: I
>never broke the laws of the United States.  Sounds like he's saying he never
>smoked but what he's actually saying is that he tried it in England.  Now look

Keep in mind Bush's response when asked about Iran-Contra: "I was out of the
loop."  Sounds like he's saying he was never involved or even knew about what
was happening but what he's actually saying is that he wasn't making the
decisions.

Bush said this is what "out of the loop" means when he says it -- no decision
making capability.  This doesn NOT mean he didn't know about it, didn't have
opinions about it, didn't advise President Reagan (or others) about it, or
didn't express opinions in meetings.

It is almost impossible for anyone to reach high government office without
being able to use weasel words.  Personally, I trust Clinton's direction far
more than I trust Bush's.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Here I am, fifty-eight, and I still don't know what I want to be when I grow up.
- Peter Drucker
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: S.O.S.: Help save Dan Quayle from the ragin
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:59:00 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 26468@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu, rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis) writes:
>Greetings fellow dittoheads!  Over in alt.fan.dan-quayle, the Vice President
>is undergoing a ton of unfair bashing by a mob of jealous, resentful, 
>loathsome people of the L word persuasion.  Those far-left-wing liberals
>just won't let up on him, or those, very few of us, who are defending him.
>We could use a bit of help in defending him against all of those false
>accusations that they have been flinging at him.  They're also picking
>on Jessie Helms.  Thanks for any help!    

So what's the problem?

---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: seitzler@sscvx1.ssc.gov (JOHN SEITZLER)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Organization: Superconducting Super Collider Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:50:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.215124.7030@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Norman.Miller@launchpad.unc.edu (Norman writes...
> 
>Great subject.  It sums up perfectly the bizarre mentality of the Fat
>Party that George Bush's (George Bush, for God's sake!) admirers 
>see nothing wrong in calling the Democrats whiners.
> 
>No complaint, mind you, quite the contrary.  I look forward to four
>years of resentful, dyspeptic, and of course empty prose from the
>Bush leaguers.  Carry on.
> 
>Norman Miller
>nmiller@starbase.trincoll.edu
> 
>--
>   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
>     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
>        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
>           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

__________________________________________________________

Nor-man ooo oooo oooo oooo  Nor-man.  You missed the whole point.  We
are not Bush fanatics, we just aren't flaming liberals.  We raked
Bush for giving in to the pimps in Congress in the first place. Pimps
because they don't represent the people, they represent the ones that
can best fulfill their own needs and careers.  I'm not resentful either.
I too am looking forward to Clinton's reign.  Should prove to be interesting
at least.  Bush's problem was - He had no backbone.  Clinton's problem,
- he will now have to take a stand on something and (here's the keyword)
follow through and take responsibility for his actions.

John Seitzler

seitzler@sscvx1.ssc.gov  

The opinions expressed are entirely my own cause that's the way I want
it!
From: terst1+@pitt.edu (Timothy E Rapp)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Those Wacky Conservatives!
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:58:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <nate.788@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harry Tuttle) writes:
>
>>  What is the point of calling women "feminazis"?
>>Or belittling Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Mario Cuomo?
>
>    Entertainment value only.
>

Since when did you hear Rush call ALL women "feminazis"?  He is refering
specifically to "militant feminist pro-abortionists".  If this is still
not clear, then refer to his recent best seller.

------------------------
Timothy Rapp
terst1@unix.cis.pitt.edu
------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: edcrwfrd@unlv.edu (Edward Crawford)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: UNLV
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 22:44:15 GMT


What i think would be a good idea is to do what Texas Did, where
the polls openned very early. Now i dont support this to increase
voter turn out (although i guess that isnt that bad) but if
most of the people have already voted when the east coast
polls close, it doesnt matter what the news says, everyone
else already voted.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tom@uts.cc.wayne.edu (Thomas Richard Stevenson)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Organization: Wayne State Univ.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:29:06 GMT

gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:


>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?

Liberalism didn't die over the last 12 years, so why should Conservatism
die in just the next 4. ;-)

Both groups will still be fighting long after all of us are died. If either 
group did die out, the other group wouldn't have anyone to pick on, and 
would die out too. 

>Felix Gorney
-- 
     ____  __   __       Tom@UTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
      /   /_/  /_        Thomas_Richard_Stevenson@MTS.CC.Wayne.Edu
     /.  /\ . __/.       Tom@CMS.CC.Wayne.Edu
                         UserTom@WayneMTS.Bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:13:00 GMT

Man, I can't believe the complaints I'm getting with my sig - isn't it amazing
that for 12 years, Democrats have been ridiculing Reagan, Bush, Quayle, and 
anything conservative, yet when they are finally victorious they allow no 
dissent whatever? I was going to change this sig after about a week or so, 
but since it's irritating so many whiny liberals, I'm going to keep it around
for a while. 
-- 
John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
                           | Support the coup!
CompuServe: 74076,1250     |
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   |
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Election '92
Date: 4 Nov 92 23:35:30 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 1d7q8sINNb7f@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu, andersmc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU () writes:
>To the American People,
>	What do you have in mind? Are all of us crazy?  
>
>	We just elected Billary Clinton.... I mean Hill Clinton... whoops
>	I mean Bill Clinton and Mr. Ozone.    Hmmmmm....
>
>Does Bill have a mandate?  NO!!!!  He did not take a majority of the American
>people. 
>I hope to GOD that I'm wrong when I say that this countryturned the wrong
>corner.
>
>Anyway... Gotta think positively!  Any one for Canada?

You needn't worry.  You are wrong.

America has finally shown some intelligence after 12 years of stupidity.
Hopefully now, America will be strong.

---
===============================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Computing Systems			Office	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com				FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone and do not
		reflect those of anyone else including my organization,
		my management or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The quintessential dittohead!
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:07:32 GMT
Reply-To: hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

In article <1992Nov8.210943.25832@netcom.com>
   jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>Phone   Rebecca from Canonsburg, PA
>
>Rebecca suggests that Rush start the Limbaugh School of
>Journalism and Broadcasting so as to produce journalists who are
>actually interested in fairness and accuracy in the media. Rush
>isn't sure about this idea since he would be producing some
>competitors to him, and he thinks he can handle the load alone.
>"Do you think we need more than me?" he asks.
>
>Rebecca says that Rush is on only three hours of each day, and
>she can't figure out how to program her VCR to record the TV
>show, so she does think more people are needed. Of course, these
>graduates would take their marching orders from Rush. Rush still
>isn't sure, but he is fascinated by the idea of a Limbaugh
>Institute for Journalism.
>
>Rebecca says that scholarships could be paid for by higher taxes
>on the rich, and school fees and loans could be repaid with a two
>year internship at newsrooms across the country. Rush thinks
>about it some more and says that Rebecca has come up with some
>brilliant ideas, and he promises the EIB Institute will start
>examining them closely.

Why doesn't it suprise me that a dittohead can't figure out how to
program a VCR?  I'm suprised she didn't ask Rush how to do it. 
After all, Rush knows everything, and he's always right, right?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their acceptable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7961 alt.rush-limbaugh:9083 alt.politics.bush:13240 misc.test:12731 talk.bizarre:36927 alt.politics.clinton:15934
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,misc.test,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:21:38 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Nov5.082832.19492JPII@tygra.Michigan.COM> jp@tygra.Michigan.COM (John Palmer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.034239.3528@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
>"
>"
>"Since George is on his way out, we will no longer need alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
>"alt.rush-limbaugh, or alt.politics.bush.  I will be sending out the
>"rmgroups for these three groups.  Also, since Clinton is now president,
>"I will create alt.president.clinton.  Since the volume should be large,
>"we'll hold on to alt.politics.clinton for a while.
>"
>"
>"Ta-ta for now,
>"M
>
>
>Good idea - I beat you to it!! rmgroups for alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and
>alt.politics.bush have been sent out as well as a newgroup for
>alt.president.clinton. I forgot alt.rush-limbaugh - you do the honors
>for that one.
>
Wait a minute--dropping newsgroups merely for supporting tBush??

I thought users were allowed to vote on things like that.

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: enor@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: just a test
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:23:08 GMT

This is just a test to see if the News Server is Working right at UML
From: kml@cellar.org (Scott Tiger)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The 43% solution
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:35:52 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system


Presidents who won with less than 45% of the vote:

Abraham Lincoln
Woodrow Wilson
Richard Nixon
Bill Clinton

(Note: Reagan only got 50.7% over Carter - his landslide, like Clinton's
, was in the electoral college.)

Clinton won big where it counts.  Get used to it.

                  Something constructive should come here.
  kml%cellar@tredysvr.tredydev.unisys.com - My other account is a Mercedes.
From: archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Did Rush Lie on Abortion? (was Re: Summary Fri 10/23/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:21:34 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In <1992Nov04.231020.17209@digibd.com> merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

*madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
*>As an aside, Allah is simply the Arabic word for God and it is the same
*>God as in the christian or judaic accounts.
*
*Wrong.  One god has a kid, the other two gods don't.
*
*Sounds like at least two different gods to me.
*

Odd, all three religions share a large number of holy books, and Jesus
is regarded as a prophet by Islam.  Perhaps you should do some comparitive
religion reading.


Archer Sully <archer@sgi.com> | Election '92: a 250 million way tie for last.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Boxer vs. Herschensohn (was Re: Rush is such a bad loser)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:16:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.184245.3984@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>In article 14586@EE.Stanford.EDU, budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
: Anyway, the Boxer-Herschensohn campaign was particularly ugly, and
: Mrs. Boxer was highly ungracious, even offencive, in her acceptance
: speech out here. (the party was in San Francisco, of course. All that
: was missing from the three-ring circus was the dancing bear.) SHe 
: effectively did what Johnson did in 1964 against Goldwater, albeit with
: much less potent results. She painted Mr. Herschensohn as an extremist
: (and perhaps he is a bit right of centre). But, she accused him of
: terrible bigotry which was not evident in the campaign. I disagree with
: his stance on abortion rights and military spending (slash ALL spending).
: But, I think that she was terribly personal and nasty. Maybe that is
: why she jsut squeaked by (perhaps slid by on a couple of those
: 143 bounced cheques.)

>You make it sound like this was a one-way ugly campaign.  It was not.
>Herschensohn did not even give a concession speech until the next day
>and when he did he was especially bitter.  He knew it was over at about
>8:01PM when the exit poll results were announced, however he failed to
>give a concession speech that night.  No class.

	There was someone I know who was annoyed with both. He didn't
like Boxer because of her opposition to the Gulf War (she introduced
several resolutions to block Desert Shield), though he had less to
complain about in Feinstein's conduct (she didn't do much to try to
stop the war). This made him consider voting for June Genis, the
Libertarian candidate for that seat. But Herschensohn's rather vicious
negative ads turned him off, so he was stuck with Boxer.

	I myself had half-thought of voting for Genis, but I didn't
think Boxer horrible enough to vote for Genis as a protest vote.

	Originally, she wanted to avoid mudslinging, and to "stick
with the issues", but after Herschensohn's ads started appearing, she
did run some negative ads later on, ones pointing out some of the
views Herschensohn expressed as a Southern California commentator,
like his opposition to abortion and his desire for increased military
spending.

	Her slim margin of victory may have made it overconfident to
state, as she did, that Californians have rejected "the politics of
hate, the politics of fear, the politics of division, and the politics
of blame," but her opponent's response was pure crybaby whining,
accusing her of hitting below the belt and running a mudslinging
negative campaign. I don't watch very much TV, but did Herschensohn
ever run any _positive_ ads, ones that didn't bash Boxer?
From: niceswangern@bvc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Let's Start a Silly Party!!!
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:37:33 CDT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA

In article <1992Nov4.203010.19899@EE.Stanford.EDU>, budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
> 
> Well, in analysing the election, we see that the state of california,
> with a high number of silly voters went silly as expected. Georgia went
> for the silly party, perhaps due to the high immigration of people
> with silly-leaning tendencies. And, New Hampshire, which has had
> in the past a huge number of people who are not in the least bit
> silly went completely gaga.
> 
> As we can see, this election guarantees for us about four years
> of very silly government.
> 

	Hey, I've got an idea!  Why doesn't Perot start a full fledged 
third party and call it the "Silly Party".  Heck, I'd vote for anyone 
that's brave enuff to run for the SILLY party.
	Their symbol could be Bullwinkle Moose, they could tell lots of 
silly jokes, and they could promise to turn this country into a giant 
amusement park.  They could even adopt the "Silly Walk".  Plus, they could 
take in all those presedential candidates that run for parties that nobody 
ever hears about until they actually look at the ballot.  Whaddya think???
	It might be fun to have three parties and cause even more confusion 
in this country!!!

				Just being silly,
				Nate the Grate
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: RADIO LEAD IN TUNE
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:01:54 GMT

In article <92316.123032ADB103@psuvm.psu.edu>, <ADB103@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> The name of the song is "OHIO" the group is the very liberal Chrissy Hynde
> Davies and the Pretenders.

(1) She's not Davies.
(2) "Very liberal" is a bit of a misnomer.  She's a vegetarian who
    compares eating beef to eating a child, and included a hymn to
    the Goddess on one of her albums.
(3) "The Pretenders" are essentially whoever can make it through to
     the next album; they have a tragic habit of OD'ing between records.

I think she qualifies as "radical" by the tightest standards.  And
this from a liberal :-) ... I think the song is "Learning to Crawl,"
probably their best record.

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
From: lanier@acpub.duke.edu (Dustin Lanier)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: You probably missed this
Date: 11 Nov 92 16:58:57 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.


>Limbaugh also reported "Wow, Spanish is easy!"

That commercial is wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oh god it drives me nuts.
Eso si, que es does *NOT* mean "that's what it is"
it means "Yes that, what is it?"
It drives me absolutely nutty!  And it is amazing they
would do that advertising with incorrect spanish!

Dustin
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh