HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 15:44:21 GMT

tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>Today our paper addressed this question.  The paper gave exact excerpts
>from what she wrote.  The following is by memory, but much more accurate
>than what has been implied by Buchannan.   The answer is NO, she did not.
>She wrote about institutions that have historically put an entire class of
>people under the control of another class of people.  "Examples include
>marriage, slavery and indian reservations."

But wait! She did say that all these were examples of institutions which
DEPRIVED classes of people of their RIGHTS. 

Of course, she did not "equate" the family or marriage to slavery. She did
express her belief that they all have something in common - oppression.
From: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (William M. Porter)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: George & Jennifer
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:38:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Houston
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Aug19.153704.27950@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes...

>	Rumors of George & Jennifer (or is it Gennifer?) were being passed
>around by republicans in 1988, before Bush got the nomination. The rumor
>has enough supporters that it's persisted for quite a few years, and several
>people have talked about it off the record. Thats not as good as having a
>stripper do interviews where whe claims to have been screwing Bill Clinton,
>but it's enough to warrent some attention.

Well, I don't know how to respond to this except to say that it's silly. There
have been rumors about Elvis being alive for years, too, about UFOs, and about
all sorts of other things, but of course they're not all worth examining. These
rumors have no substantial basis and they simply feed themselves. They have
persisted only because GHWB is personally so boring that the press desperately
WANTS something interesting to say about the guy. I do not regard this as a
case of liberal-media bias. Something very similar was done to Gary Hart, as I
said. 

>	None the less, it's either an issue or it isn't. President Bush,
>through his campaign staff, has been quietly making an issue of it for
>some time, and will presumably continue to do so. That being the case,
>it seems fair for others to reply in kind.

>	It seems that some republicans want it both ways, they want to
>condem Clinton as a philanderer, while calling Bushs personal life 
>"off limits".  

I am one Bush supporter who hopes that the GOP won't make an issue of Clinton's
infidelity (alleged or otherwise). But I certainly don't think two wrongs make
a right. Personally, I think this is an empty issue, regardless of who raises
it.

William Porter  * * * Classical Languages: University of Houston
Internet: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu /or/ CompuServe: 75430,1351
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4459 alt.rush-limbaugh:3603
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Tax Cuts and Limbaugh Bias
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:34:09 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 24137@usenet.ins.cwru.edu, cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan) >As far as Limbaugh bias goes, he regularly practices censorship.
>I called the show on a Tuesday and asked to talk about the 
>Libertarian Party. As soon as I mentioned "Libertarian Party"
>without saying anything else, Lo Bianco told me that that topic
>is reserved for Open Lines Friday.
>I hung up and wondered why it was.

I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that he practices censorship
and is biased.  This, he freely admits.  He also likes to control the subject
matter and gets uncomfortable when somebody "sneaks" by the producer.  This, I
also have no problems with since his number one intention is to make money.

My only objection is that he tries to convince listeners that his side is the
only side necessary.  While I disagree with virtually everything he says, I
am very interested in hearing what the other side has to say.  Even when he
demonstrates a lack of intelligence and foresight, I enjoy it because I think
it is important for everyone to know the WHOLE story.  Just hearing what you
want to hear is not going to do anyone any good any day.
 
>I've heard people call up and talk about frivolous matters
>Monday thru Thursday. Then the other day I heard that he
>said that he's doesn't like to allow avowed Libertarians
>to call the show because he doesn't want to discuss 
>legalization of drugs. His attitude is the same towards
>pro-choicers: he allowed pro-lifers to call but never
>allows a pro-choicer to call and cross examine him.
>Apparently he doesn't want to discuss ISSUES. 
>Why not? Are they too topical? Apparently he likes
>censor his calls. If his viewpoint is so important,
>why doesn't he go head to head with the verboten
>folk? He doesn't like debate.

Agreed he doesn't like debate, especially when someone articulates points
that he feels uncomfortable with.  Again, it's his show and he can do as he
pleases.  Sure, he's arrogant, conceited, self-centered, deluded, and
pompous, but he's only exercising his right to free speech and anyone
with liberal or centrist views would never try to stop him.


---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4370 alt.rush-limbaugh:3551
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A fine opporitunity for flaming liberal flameage
Date: 12 Aug 92 21:11:35 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug12.005823.14573@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
->steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
->
->> I dont have the time for all these points. Can we not handle one at a
->>time. Prayer in schools. Conservatives stand for choice in schools. We
->>want schools privatised so students and parents can choose the school
->>which best represents the values and ideals they deem important to
->>themselves and the world. We want Big Government Totally out of the 
->>picture.
->
->According to the Clinton Economic Plan, he also a supports giving "every
->parent the right to choose the public school his or her child attends,
->as we have done in Arkansas".

 According to an article in Conservative Chronicles Clinton originally
agreed with these proposals. He even went so far as to write a local 
reformer telling her that the reason so many people in the Democratic
Party disagree with her is that reformers or progressives are always
treated that way. Then, when he had to win the white house and win the
Big Government backing of the NEA he caved in on this issue like so 
many other "progressive" issues he caved in on just to win the special
interests democratic block vote. A typical Clinton "choice" issue.
 Where is clintons open support for vouchers ? Does he want school 
choice without vouchers. The NEA supports Clinton and is on record as
being anti-school choice. More examples could follow.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crb2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Chad R. Berthelson)
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% f
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 14:32:22 GMT

>HU.Have you ever thought about starting a business?  Have you thought about
>  .what would happen if your business would fail, and you would be left with
>  .no health insurance?  What if you developed an expensive medical condition
>  .while you were trying a new business, and no employer would let you onto
>  .their health plan?


I don't know the background of this person (or any of the pro-national health
care system folks),  but this is mine...

I was raised in the military (users of a similar system), and I went
to Navy/Air Force hospitals until I was 18.  I never remember being seen
in any less than 4 hours, and can recall several situations (non-emergency,
they say) that I waited from 8am until 5pm in a lobby (once with a bucket..)
only to be told that I wasn't going to be seen, but to come back tommorrow.
I don't want this kind of health care system.

One might argue that those are Military doctors, and that with private
doctors you'll get better care....maybe.  I say your right for a year
at best (until the good doctors move overseas, and through attrition 
retire out of the force).  I say that unless a doctor keeps the option
of a $400k salary, that you will NOT have the brightest students fighting
for a spot in a class that leads to 7 or eight more years of education
and a job that has 70-80 hr work weeks, and a history of being the
number one career on the lists on most alchoholics, suicides, stress....
you get the picture.

I could like for the advocates of government (national) health care to
run down to the nearest governement run agency and ask for some 
help....try the Department of Motor Vehicles, perhaps.

Chad
>                                           
--

Chad R. Berthelson		Graduate Research/Teaching Assistant
crb2@ra.msstate.edu		Biological Engineering
cberth@abe.msstate.edu		Mississippi State University
From: lukec@terapin.com (Luke Chastain)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: 13 14
Date: 16 Aug 92 20:15:33 PST
Organization: BBS

I missed Rush's show the 13-14 did I miss anything?

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
Subject: Tax Cuts and Limbaugh Bias
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 17:24:46 GMT


Bill Clinton's New Covenant will be a catastrophe. Why does the
government need all those entitlement programs? The private sector
does it better, and if a welfare program is unfair, we're not
stuck with it for the next 500 years. 

We need less government and therefore less taxes to finance it.

As far as Limbaugh bias goes, he regularly practices censorship.
I called the show on a Tuesday and asked to talk about the 
Libertarian Party. As soon as I mentioned "Libertarian Party"
without saying anything else, Lo Bianco told me that that topic
is reserved for Open Lines Friday.
I hung up and wondered why it was. 
I've heard people call up and talk about frivolous matters
Monday thru Thursday. Then the other day I heard that he
said that he's doesn't like to allow avowed Libertarians
to call the show because he doesn't want to discuss 
legalization of drugs. His attitude is the same towards
pro-choicers: he allowed pro-lifers to call but never
allows a pro-choicer to call and cross examine him.
Apparently he doesn't want to discuss ISSUES. 
Why not? Are they too topical? Apparently he likes
censor his calls. If his viewpoint is so important,
why doesn't he go head to head with the verboten
folk? He doesn't like debate.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (William M. Porter)
Subject: Lynn Martin & Bill Bennett's speeches
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 07:22:00 GMT

Transcripts (some partial) of a few speeches given earlier in the convention
were posted here earlier. I thought that a couple of the very best speeches so
far were given tonight. The speech of Mary Fisher, the woman from Michigan who
is HIV-positive, was moving. More centrally important to the party's fall
campaign were the excellent speeches of Lynn Martin, secretary of labor, and
William Bennett. Martin's speech was, IMO, aggressive without being harshly
negative, well written and well delivered. She painted a picture of a vigorous
George Bush, a man of action and many accomplishments. They should send her out
on the campaign a lot. William Bennett's speech was somewhat less stirring:
Bennett's style was a bit professorial (though >I< am more exciting than
that!). Nevertheless, Bennett sketched a coherent conservative philosophy that
sounds less defensive than Pat Buchanan's philosophy. I especially liked
Bennett's criticism of what are popularly called "deadbeat dads". This is a
winning issue for the Republicans, one that G. Bush has already put some effort
into in the past. It's not an easy issue for the Dems to address: the
pro-choice position rather neatly undercuts the issue of the father's
responsibility by arguing that the pregnant woman alone has the right to decide
whether her child (a.k.a. unviable tissue mass) will be carried to term.

Does anyone know where a transcript of these speeches could be obtained? I'll
check the NY Times tomorrow, but I don't expect to see the entire speeches
reprinted.

William Porter  * * * Classical Languages: University of Houston
Internet: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu /or/ CompuServe: 75430,1351
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A fine opporitunity for flaming liberal flameage
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:44:21 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug13.042509.4904@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:

->I read an article somewhere regarding the newspaper print media's recommendations
->in the past three presidential elections.  An overwhelming majority recommended
->the republican ticket.  I know our local rags, San Jose Mercury and San Francisco
->Chronicle are quite conservative and have always backed the conservative ticket.

 Please provide us with the article. I would love to read a newspaper story
about how the newspapers are not biased. This would be most entertaining.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Stop your BITCHING
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:26:04 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 12465@news.iastate.edu, wjpirkl@iastate.edu (William J Pirkl) writes:
>I beleive this happened last Friday on Rush's show:
>Rush was complaining (endlessly) about how King George's ratings in the
>polls has dropped 65 POINTS in the lat year and a half.  He said,"nothing
>has changed.  Why the drop in popularity?"
>I have a theory.  Some things have not changed.  Unemployment remains high,
>we are still in a recession, George still says recovery is "around the
>corner" , etc.  
>However some things have changed.
>  1.  We now know that Saddam learned nothing, and he is still slaughtering
>      his own people, and flaunting U.N Security Council obligations.
>  2.  George, after saying for 2+ years, that we didn't have a recession,
>      finally admitted that we are in one.  He now says all economic signs
>      say we are in recovery.

About Item 2.  George never did admit to "being" in a recession.  By the time
he acknowledged it, he said it was over and that we were in recovery.
---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% f
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:07:11 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.165207.18260@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>In a previous article, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) says:
>
>>>You just can't get
>>>something for nothing.  The constitution grants us 'the right to the
>>>pursuit of happiness', not a right to happiness.  There's a rather big
>>>difference.  And the Dems have never understood it.  Or perhaps, they do
>>>understand too well, and get rich and powerful over it.
>
>Funny...
>Aren't an overwhelming majority of the rich and powerful conservative
>Republicans?
>


I understand that there are 27 millionaires in the US Senate and that 21
of them are Democrats


>>
>>This reminds me of the ABC news lastnight, where they were discussing the
>>so-called failed economic agenda of Bush.  A thousand points of light was
>>discussed and then Jennings says, "but that doesn't help Jack Mimmers of
>>Ohio..he's out of work."  Like, the gov. is supposed to guarantee his job? 
>
>Guarantee?  No.
>But when our country's jobs are being handed to third-world countries by
>Republican ideas of "Free Trade", I think it's a legitimate point.
>

Gosh, I thought we had some sort of "obligation" to help improve living
conditions in under-developed countries.  


>>When is someone going to tell Peter, Dan, and Tom that this is not a
>>socialist country.  Did they forget?  They are whiners.  Let us now call
>>them whiners.  
>
>I don't think anyone was saying this was a socialist nation.  But I don't
>think the idea of our government working to provide incentives to business
>to keep jobs on shore is a socialist idea, either...
>

You mean like cuts in capital gain taxes?

Roger Shouse, The University of Chicago

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4442 alt.rush-limbaugh:3591
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A fine opporitunity for flaming liberal flameage
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:49:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>
>>  George Bush has repeatedly supported prayer in schools.  And he's not even
>>a real conservative :>)  School choice just masks the real issue.  If you
>>were to start a religious school based on the principles of Jerry Falwell,
>>and people could get vouchers from the state to pay for it, in effect the
>>state has supported religion, and the preferred religion is the one that
>>gets the most vouchers.  Another school could be founded, too.  One that 
>>teaches Satanism and shows pornography in addition to the regular curriculum.
>>And *your* tax dollars would have to support *that* school.
>
>>  I'm all for private schools.  Maybe your church supports them so
>>disadvantaged kids can go, too.  But don't expect me to help pay for them.
>
>Watch out, your ignorance is showing.  In case you hadn't noticed, we
-----------------^^^^^^^^^ My first ad hominem attack!  I guess I've been
                           truly initiated into the newsgroup now!
>all pay for the educational system as we know it today, even if our kids
>go to a private school.  If your children go to a private school, you
>are in effect paying twice for that education.  What many 
>people are fighting for is a voucher system that gives them back their
>tax money if they send their kids to a private school. If I take my kid
>out of public school and get my "tuition" back from the government, you
>are certainly not paying for my child's education.

Of course I realize you pay twice if you send your children to private
schools.  However, using the voucher system does not mean that I am not
paying for your kids education.  We all pay property taxes don't we?
I have no kids right now in school.  Therefore, I am getting no direct
benefit from my school taxes.  Under a voucher system, part of the money
I pay in school taxes goes to support your private religious school.
Where does the money behind the vouchers come from, anyway?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Bush is a Conservative! (
Date: 12 Aug 92 09:18:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

  .From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
  .Subject: Bush is a Conservative! (Re: more predictions)
  .Message-ID: <1992Aug7.125713.17559@hemlock.cray.com>
  .Date: 7 Aug 92 12:57:13 CDT

RA.In article <1992Aug7.132000.977@athena.cs.uga.edu>, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (T
  .Kalivoda) writes:

RA.> Some interesting speculations, the above deleted which may very well be
  .> true, none of which are because of a conservative president, which, of
  .> course, Bush is NOT.

RA.Bush keeps saying that he is a conservative.  Is he lying?  I've not
  .heard him use a disclaimer (like "read my lips") before he says it.

What's your definition of conservative?  If it's to make a smaller
gov't, than I think you have to say that Bush is conservative, at least
compared to Clinton, who would tax us into prosperity!

RA.Conservatives in 1988 kept saying Bush was the heir to the Reagan legacy.
  .Were they lying?  Where were all conservative nay-sayers four years ago?
  .It seems nowdays you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a conservative
  .trying to distance themselves from Bush.  I guess conservatives hate to
  .admit that one of their own ran the economy into the ground.

How can you say the Bush ran the economy into the ground?  How could
that be done by a President?  He would have to author several bills that
Congress would have to pass that does the dirty deed.  However, it has
been made quite clear that Bush's bills don't get past first base, so
where did these new laws come from that ran our economy into the ground?
Congress.  And who runs Congress?  The Democrats.

RA.Sure, Bush raised taxes in 1990, but Reagan also raised taxes several times
  .(1982, the SS tax bill in 1993, "reform" in 1986, that I can think of off
  .hand).

Well, Congress raises taxes.  No President can raise taxes, only
Congress.  During Reagan's reign, taxes did go up, and he pushed for
more military money, of course.  On the other hand our max tax rate
dropped by over 50%, and the revenues from those 'decreased' tax rates
quadrupled.   So, it would seem that lowering income tax rates,
increases revenues?  Perhaps that's because tax revenues are created by
money exchanging hands, and when there is more to exchange.....

Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . ..........Hindsight is an exact science...........
                                                                                      
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Subject: Re: Is Rush just a teenie bit inconsistent ???
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: usa, na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 01:00:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.234209.14813@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  
tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
> In article <1992Aug19.202136.21083@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)  
writes:
> 
> >When was the last time you heard a Clinton/Flowers joke in the news?  Or did  
> >you EVER hear one?
> 
> Oh yeah, I heard a lot of Clinton Flowers jokes, many of them bad puns on
> Flowers, Defloriate, etc...    But they didn't last more than a month or so,
> except on Rush's program.  Rush is still making jokes about Chappaquidick,
> and the Smith rape trial for heavens sake.

	And I'm sick of hearing those jokes, too.
					Erik Powers
> 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4434 alt.rush-limbaugh:3584