HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Why Can't Republicans or Programmers Spell?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:37:52 GMT

jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:

>John Switzer               | 50 years from now, nobody will
>                           | remember Candice Bergen or Murphy
>74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Brown, but every school kid will
>jrs@netcom.com             | be taught about President Quayle.

I found one! I found one! A genuine stupid-enough-to-think-Quayle-could-even-
get-the-'96-nomination-under-favorable-circumstances Republican!!!!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
a
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Right-wingers attack immigrant backers
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 20:15:52 GMT

alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

>In article <1992Sep15.115842.7092@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>>>The original post says Right-wingers and neo-Nazis.
>>>The original post does not say Right-wingers == neo-Nazis.
>>>But thank you Steve for your opinions that are yours and your alone.
>>
>>Why are you surprised that he made this connection?  Liberals and
>>the press are constantly equating the two.  It's a well-known fact
>>that the far end of the right-wing spectrum is Nazism.  How this
>>tremendous leap of logic was ever carried out, I have no idea, but
>>it has been an extremely good political tool used by liberals.

>	Well, in spite of the socialist roots of Nazism, the American Nazi
>Party and the KKK are much closer to the GOP then the Democratic party.
>I would expect that the average modern Nazi would consider the Dems to
>be the epitomy of ZOG. (I notice that David Duke wasn't a democrat).

David Duke ran as a Republican.  David Duke is (probably?) racist.  I
haven't heard him say he's a Nazi.  You are making the same connection
that began this.  Racism != Conservatism.  It has no place in the
conservative dogma.  As you pointed out, Nazism had it's roots in
Socialism--about as far from Conservatism as you can get.  
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: TV show commercials
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:18:20 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Computing Systems

In article 5151@news.duke.edu, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>Just wondering if everyone out there has seen any of the commercials for
>his TV show yet. I recently saw his commercial with him supposedly
>kept in some parcel service storage facility where everything was labeled
>"Rush." At the end of the commercial this very oddly shaped package
>is rolled to a place in the room where there is a microphone with muffled
>sounds of Rush emanating from the package. Pretty funny commercial. Any
>other spots out there?
>
>To Attebury at KU:
>WRDC TV28 (NBC affiliate): 12Noon starting Sep 14.

Anyone out there have information for the San Francisco Bay Area?  I haven't
heard of seen anything yet.

---
===============================================================================
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.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Right-wingers attack immigrant backers
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 11:58:42 GMT

mxa2677@usl.edu (Axelrod Michael) writes:

>In article <1954@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep14.195038.14973@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>>->In article <germany-extremistsU2SC330pe@clarinet.com>,
>>->clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI) writes:
>>->> 
>>->> 	BONN, Germany (UPI) -- Right-wingers and neo-Nazis stoned a group of
>                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>>->> people and driving the pro-immigrant group away before again attacking a
>>->> hostel for asylum seekers, officials said Saturday.

>> Thanks for the posting. I have known about these people for a long time.
>>Its why I will never go to Germany and always caution people who are going 
>>their about it. It has nothing to do with Modern American Conservatives.
>>Nazis are not Conservative. Nazi stands for Nationalist Socialist.
>>They need a large government/buissness relationship to spread their terror.
>>We Free Market Conservatives want small government and worldwide free mar-
>>kets.
>>
>> Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

>The original post says Right-wingers and neo-Nazis.
>The original post does not say Right-wingers == neo-Nazis.
>But thank you Steve for your opinions that are yours and your alone.

Why are you surprised that he made this connection?  Liberals and
the press are constantly equating the two.  It's a well-known fact
that the far end of the right-wing spectrum is Nazism.  How this
tremendous leap of logic was ever carried out, I have no idea, but
it has been an extremely good political tool used by liberals.

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4465 alt.politics.clinton:4642 alt.news-media:1193
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:51:29 GMT
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University

In article <1915@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>
> Many Conservatives cautioned against using the Patriot Missile Defense System
>during the Iraq Conflict. The reason was that this system was not designed to
>do the job it was designated to do. The original design for missile defense was
>killed in congress and they then had to retrofit the patriot to try to defend
>local incoming missiles. Its job was to explode somewhere in front of the in-
>coming missile and hope that shrapnel would destroy the missle warhead. The
>cruise misslie on the other hand uses a terrain map and is able to accurately
>follow the terrain for many miles. The patriots guidance is supplied by ground
>based computer software. The cruise missle is able to follow a course by com-
>paring current ground terrain to internal mapped terrain.
> Its like comparing a centrally planned statist system to an independent non-
>statist system. The cruise missile contains much more internal sophistication
>than the brain dead patriot missile.

Wow.  We've reached a level of analogy and comparison that simply
takes my breath away.

You know, there was a little discussion in sci.military not too long
ago that suggested that you could build basement cruisemissiles
with, say, a small airplane with lots of bombs, a GPS, and some
electronics to hook said GPS to the flight controls.  Really
funny about that internal sophistication, you know.

On the other hand, a ballistic missile defense, even one as first-generation
as the Patriot, is analogous to hitting a bullet with a bullet.  You can
try that in your backyard, if you like.  Just get a friend to come along.
Kevlar vests are optional.





--
"I wish I could vote for you a hundred times"
"You can . . . just kidding."
			-- _Bob Roberts_
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Washington Window
Organization: SPS
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:20:58 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.192915.25180@ils.nwu.edu>, hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
|> In article <windowURd0_2S9@clarinet.com>, clarinews@clarinet.com (HELEN
|> THOMAS, UPI White House Reporter) writes:
|> > 
|> > 	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- ``Marching in Place,'' a new book on the George
      ...
|> > 	But the abiding theme is that the Bush presidency has been a 
|> > ``holding action'' with ``no defining real priorities.''
|> > 	He was described as a ``fiscal conservative'' who like President
|> > Ronald Reagan ``cut taxes for the wealthy and raised them for everybody
|> > else.''
|> > 	``Under Bush the U.S. government collected just as much in taxes --
|> > about 20 percent of national income -- as it had under Jimmy Carter. The
|> > difference was that the bottom three-fifths of families, ranked by
|> > household income were paying more taxes than in 1980, so that the top
|> > tenth could pay less, and so that the top 1 percent could pay much less.
|> > ''

Puke.  Whatever "truth" there is in this is attributable to the Ponzi-scheme
called social security.

Reagan first proposed cutting S.S. payouts and was devastated politically.
But since S.S. was in fiscal crisis the Dems and Reps got together in a commission
and their solution was massive FICA tax increases then and in the future.  (the 
future increases are scheduled in law).

There is an income cutoff (at ~ $55000 currently which also has scheduled increases)
where any income above that is not subject to FICA.  And FICA doesn't apply to investment income.

Income taxes under Reagan went down for ALL Americans.

What demagoguery.  Helen Thomas quotes the book but maybe the quote is taken out of
context.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 21:07:53 GMT

best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>Inate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>>>       I am surprised that no one remarked on this board about a 
>>>comment made by Bill Clinton on Labor Day in Independence, Mo.  
>>>After stating the "fact" that the "richest" 1 per cent "controls"
>>>more wealth than the "poorest" 90 per cent, he said that this election
>>>is about "the rich versus everyone else."

>>    I dunno Andrew. Sounds like "Greed" to me.

>Sorry to say it Nate, but what you said sounds like "Envy" to me.

    Hmmm, maybe so. I suppose I envy rich people. That's a fairly common 
reaction.

>(See how this class warfare works?

    "There you go, always bringing class into it..."

>  The only way it will go away 
> once people are aroused is to make everyone equal - and believe
> me, you don't want to live like me :)

    Nor you me.

>Furthermore, wealth does not innately exist - it is created through
>the "labor" of man.  Gold has no intrinsic value in the ground but
>when it is processed it is quite valuable.  Therefore, the poorest
>90 percent can become wealthy if they are allowed as _individuals_
>to achieve their potential and to keep the fruits of their labor.

    Hey, that's excellent. Let's lift taxes on the poor, then, and before 
you know it we'll be up to our essentials in rich people. We'll be a whole 
nation of Donald Trumps and Ross Perots. No more need for a working class 
then buddy. We'll all have Cadillacs then, not just the "Welfare Queens".

>Does that last line sound familiar?  It's not in the Democrats
>philosophy but it is in that of the Founders.

    What do you mean it's not in the Democrats philosophy? They have no 
problems at all lowering taxes on the poor. It's the rich the Democrats 
are opposed to lowering taxes on.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4840 alt.news-media:1315 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3745
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Hyperbole about Clarence Thomas
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:02:13 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>The way you stated it,  it sounds like Thomas thinks it's ok to beat confessions
>out of prisoners. 

It wouldn't surprize me if he did.  The senate judiciary committee certainly
didn't desist from browbeating in the Anita Hill proceedings.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 16:22:05 GMT

rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>Clinton has been preparing for and running for president since he was 18.

>It shows......

    Can somebody clue me in about why it's supposed to be a bad thing that 
Clinton knew what he wanted to do since he was 18? I've known what I wanted 
to do since I was 16, and I think it helped me to make the sacrifices it 
took to get where I wanted. 

    I'd hate to think that having a long-term career objective would count 
against *me* in a job interview somewhere, especially if that objective was 
to get the exact job that I was interviewing for...

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.clinton
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: Transportation
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:58:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.174759.20588@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.232655.712@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>
>	[suggests importing Japanese railroad technology...]
>
>	This (presumed) economic and technological nationalist
>concedes defeat...

What is Petrich babbling about?  His mind reader is broken.  Nothing
in my posting concedes defeat or espouses nationalism.

The claim was that MagLev technology works.  If it does, let's buy it.
If it isn't ready to buy, then the MagLev folks need a true claim.

I like trains, but that doesn't mean that they can do anything I'd
like to have them do.  Petrich is offended that I'd suggest testing
one of the train myths.  If Petrich really wants to argue that the
truth wrt trains doesn't matter ....

>>As long as efficient public transportation has to be subsidized by
>>supposedly less efficient automobile use ....
>
>	If you are talking about the gas tax, I think it's just to
>give a stable source of funding.

Giggle.  If mass transit worked in the US, fares would be a stable
and adequate source of funding.

>	Actually, cars in America are subsidized pretty heavily.

Yeah right.  I note that the "subsidies" listed are PAID by car users,
and car users alone; it's just that they're not paid through the gas
tax.

I especially like the "free parking" subsidy.  The places that put in
"free parking" sure seem to think that the biz that results is worth
it, and "free parking" is a selling point to car-users only.

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4699 alt.politics.clinton:5164 alt.news-media:1283
From: jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Joseph Ogulin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 11 Sep 92 12:47:29 GMT
Organization: The Rift from Here to There

In article <1992Sep9.182455.13906@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave) writes:
|> Come on guys...this is just more irrelevant praddle. Let's return now to the
|> issues.
|> Dr. Norman J. LaFave

For someone who has far more education than I do, you don't seem to realize
that a lot of this stuff *IS* important.  Why?  Do I *REALLY* want someone
as President who can't remember something that could protect us one day?
Do I really want someone as President who dodges away from responsibility
while many of his peers are caught up in the whirlwind?  (Granted, if Lyndon
Johnson (a democrat, mind you) had given people a reason and purpose for the
war in Vietnam AND let the generals do what they had to do, Nam wouldn't have
been quite as unpopular.)

Now if only there was a way to get both parties to pick REAL candidates for
this election...

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

jogulin@camelot.fia.dmg.ml.com		joe@monroe.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.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:53:14 GMT

aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>       I am surprised that no one remarked on this board about a 
>comment made by Bill Clinton on Labor Day in Independence, Mo.  
>After stating the "fact" that the "richest" 1 per cent "controls"
>more wealth than the "poorest" 90 per cent, he said that this election
>is about "the rich versus everyone else."

    I dunno Andrew. Sounds like "Greed" to me.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
From: keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: Texas Instruments Information Technology Group    Plano TX
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:02:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.174759.26916@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.153704.19033@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>
>>The sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missile *can* do these things.  It
>>was one of our foremost "smart" weapons.  Do you remember the reporters
>>in Baghdad commenting on the Tomahawk coming down the street and 
>>"making a right at the intersection."?  These missiles can be accurate
>>to within a few feet.
>>
>
>There is a difference between making a right at the intersection 
>and going down a chimney...do you have the video of a cruise missile
>dropping down a chimney shute...I think not.

Neither of you are serious are you?  Cruise missles do not turn right at an
intersection, unless they're on wheels and doing about 30 MPH.  Probably
wouldn't be too hard to hit would they?

>
>>Does an anti-Quayle bias come through loud and clear on this one?  If
>>they had given him the benefit of the doubt, they could have researched
>>it a little more.  But since they are so quick to criticize him, they
>>look a little foolish themselves.
>>
>
>If were talking about accuracy here...it involves much more 
>sophisticated guidance to be able for a Patriot to intercept a
>ballistic missile than for a cruise missile to follow a mapped
>out course.  If anyone was closer to the truth, Clinton was 
>rather than Quayle.
>
Actually, a ballistic missle in reentry phase follows a fixed parabolic course.
The 'hardness' comes into determining the course and intercepting, since they
are traveling relatively fast at this point.  Cruise missles do not simply
follow a mapped course either, unless you're ignoring the terrain following
capabilities and are running them at several thousand feet!  Not too stealthy
this way, are they.

My bet is everyone is thinking of the SLAM.  That was the missle that utilizes
its own video camera and is steered by the releasing platform.


-- 
Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
80 CB900 Custom		
DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jason@beta.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski)
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Organization: EE Dept at UF
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 21:49:17 GMT

|> Both wrong, gentlemen; the S&L crisis was caused by changes in the tax
|> lasw relating to real estate development. Congress did it. 

>	And Ronald Reagan, who, while signing the bill into law, called
>	it "The most significant piece of legislation this decade", had nothing
>	to do with it, right? We should also ignore that the regulatory agency
>	in charge of the S&Ls was, at least in some cases, deliberately lax in
>	enforcing the law. We should especially ignore that part because that 
>	agency is part of the legislative branch, right?

But then congress changed the laws again without Regan's signing the bill.
If you want to get technical, that was the problem.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:41:07 GMT

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>> >       I am surprised that no one remarked on this board about a
>> >comment made by Bill Clinton on Labor Day in Independence, Mo.
>> >After stating the "fact" that the "richest" 1 per cent "controls"
>> >more wealth than the "poorest" 90 per cent, he said that this election
>> >is about "the rich versus everyone else."
>>
>>     I dunno Andrew. Sounds like "Greed" to me.

>Sounds like envy and jealousy to me.

    Maybe that too, but would the poor be envious or jealous if they 
weren't greedy as well? I think that in this case jealousy and envy are 
the results of other factors. In any event, I don't think that Clinton's 
"rich vs. everyone else" scenario is designed to appeal to hate. Most 
poor people don't hate rich people; at least I doubt it since they want 
to be rich too (as demonstrated by the large numbers of lottery tickets 
they buy in their attempts to become rich).

    I still stick by my original prognosis. Greed, pure and simple.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4507 alt.news-media:1210 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3533