HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.ru
Subject: Re: Rush grasps at straws
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:25:28 GMT
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Cal State Long Beach

In article <1992Nov4.173115.12977@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>Well, Rush certainly started his show off in classic Limbaugh style.. 
>froth, rant, rave...
>
>"Conservatives didn't lose [in spite of the loss of the white house and
>lots and lots of congressional seats].  Conservativism won because
>Clinton had to move to the center to win.  Bush lost because he
>abandoned conservativism."

  Apparently along with a very sizeable number of voters.
>
>Rush is trying to say that Clinton was more attractive to the conservatives
>than Bush?   Stretching...   really stretching.

  The only politcal principle that Rush *really* cares about is:

  Thou shalt be entertaining.

  Or is that a religious commandment ? Oops, I forgot, Conservatives these
days have a tough time telling the difference.

>
>Right now he is claiming
>
>"We have a guy who drove a VW bus in the '60s as a president elect."
>
>This is a crime?

  No, but it's finally clear evidence of his latent anti-Americanism.

>
>"Conservativism triumphed in California!  It triumphed. It triumphed."
>
>Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer elected to the Senate is a triumph for
>conservativism?  Yah, sure.
>
>God, Rush is funny today.

   Give him a few days to get over the severe shock he's been subjected
to. I'm sure he'll be back better than ever. After all, now he'll have
a Congress *and* a President to rave against. An embarassment of riches.




-- 
Jeff Sicherman
up the net without a .sig
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Robert Davis)
Subject: Re: Mr. Waffle King
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 18:16:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct26.180610.1193@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:


>I think they should look the word up in the dictionary.  It most closely aligns
>with "blathering" which is what Bush appears to be doing now.
>
>So, I can only assume that you are talking about Bush.
>

See, here you have it: more proof that the liberals like to accuse others of 
what they are guilty of themselves!  Remember how Cry Baby Clinton did
this throughout his entire presidential campaign?

*********************************************************
WARNING: the above comment is rated C (Conservative) and
may offend the politically correct because it tells the
truth.
*********************************************************


-- 
Robert D. Davis            |  VAX/VMS is a text-only adventure game.  If       
rdavis@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu  !  you win, you get to use UNIX.  If you fail, 
uunet!mystica!rdd          |  you get to use an IBM-PC running MeSsy-DOS
Telephone: 1-410-744-7964  !  with MeSsy-Windows or an Apple Macintosh.  
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:37:32 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <168959E7B.EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu>, EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu writes:
|> 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
|>  
|> How many votes did Bush get? I think with the higher voter turnout,
|> Clinton probably got far more votes than Bush did in '88. Maybe more
|> Than Reagan in '80 or '84!
|>  
|> >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!
|>  
|> Or you could look at it this way: 2 thirds voted against the incumbent.
|> That's a mandate.
|>  

Clinton got a SMALLER percentage of the popular vote than Mike Dukakis
did in 1988.  I have difficulty seeing that as some glorious coronation
and mandate for Clinton.  The thing that was clear was the the people
of the US no longer want George Bush to be the president.  But that's
not any kind of outpouring of support for Clinton or his policies.

(Not that I think that it will matter in the least.  The Democratic 
party is clearly in power right now, and they will do what they want.  I
don't know why anyone is bothering to worry about a mandate or not.  That
is something for the president to try to use with an obstructionist 
Congress, and it's hard to imagine this Congress being obstructionist
at all for Mr. Clinton.)

Just my 'umble opinion.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: The Decline of America
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1dq7mnINNsd1@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:06:44 GMT

In article <1dq7mnINNsd1@agate.berkeley.edu> yeomans@stonehenge.ced.berkeley.edu (Gary Todd Yeomans) writes:
	[... Rush defense deleted ...]

    Yours in Rush, 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^              
Puke..

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Revered, now I live on. O did I do no evil, I wonder ever.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, mk009b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu ([Matt Kaufman]) writes:

> 
> >America has finally shown some intelligence after 12 years of stupidity.
> >Hopefully now, America will be strong.
> 
> 
> Strong, get real.  He'll take our cash, kick us in the ass, and then blame
> Reagan and Bush.

In other words, he will do much the same thing that Reagan and Bush did.


doug
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Hell revisited
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:52:37 GMT
Distribution: world, na, usa
Organization: Texas Instruments

In article <1992Nov4.213232.15451@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
|> In article <Eey26um00UhBQ3Y21D@andrew.cmu.edu> gp2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gary James Patalsky) writes:
|> 
|> [ Long string of rather large (assumedly) pained "NO"s deleted ]
|> 
|> >What's wrong with America.
|> 
|> I could be tempted to say Pat Rabertson, Pat Buchanan, and David Duke...
|> 
|> >                             Jimmy Carter all over again.
|> 
|> I would have liked to have seen how Ronald McReagan had handled the OPEC oil
|> embargo, the Iran Hostage crises (wait, he did handle it, he bargined with
|> the Ayatolah to keep them there until after the nomination), and other
|> major crises.  Reagan had it easy.   Easy to look good with few major crises
|> and an unlimited credit card.
|> 
|> 
|> >                                                       Say it ain't so !!
|> 
|> It IS so!  Yup.  It is true, and I for one, am laughing my head off.
|> First we (the US citizens) got rid of Communist extremism, and now
|> we have gotten rid of Reaganist extremism.   Moderate!  That's the ticket.
|> 
|> And now, I hope that time will show that all of the dire gloom and
|> doom prediction of Rush, et al, were baseless canards, and that the spirit
|> of investing in America will provide us all with a brighter better future.
|> 
|> (P.S. to Mr Doug Page    Did you notice that the Church finally decided to
|> admit that Gallileo was right, and that the earth does in fact go around 
|> the sun?   I really don't want education based on Christian Principles
|> if it takes the Church 300+ years to admit to a simple factual mistake.
|> You can (of course) tell me that the Roman Catholic Church isn't based on
|> Christian Principles *grin*  AT which point, I'll sell tickets to 30 yrs
|> war, part II)

And which Christian Principle do you nclaim that they based this position on
since it can not from theologians, but the leading scientists of the day?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:39:32 CST


In article <m4LTTB1w165w@major.panix.com>, dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
> 
> Actually, having Clinton in office for one term may be just what America
> needs; a good loud wake-up call, and a reminder of why we voted Carter out of
> the White House.
> 
> Many of the people who voted for Clinton are too young to remember 17%
> inflation, 21% home mortgages,

And some are old enough to remember GNP growth much greater than the last
four year and job creation at the same rate as Reagan...

>                                gas lines,

Resulting from Nixon's price controls on oil, which Carter repealed...

>                                            the "misery index"..

Which was just .5% higher than under Ford...

>                                                                  The pictures on
> TV of hundreds of people lined up for days on end to apply for a handful of
> jobs..

We've seen that quite a bit in the last two years.

>         The DJIA down in the 600 range, and the federal government paying 14%
> interest to finance the programs he's spooling up.
> 
> Think of it as a periodic booster shot of reality for America. :)

The public was never going to vote Democrat until a Republican mismanaged
the economy worse than Carter.  Bush did just that...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Election Results 11/3/92
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:42:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.043146.18238@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>In a previous article, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) says:
>
>>
>>Results of the 1992 US Presidential Election:
>>
>>
>>               BUSH DEFEATS CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>>               FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>
>>Yes, the media has egg uopn its collective face, along with the Democrats!!
>>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Er...who has eggs upon WHO'S face???
>
>>The media thought they could get Clinton elected, but in the end the American
>>people had the last word!!!
>>
>
>That's right Simon, they did.
>
>
>Now wipe off that yolk....
>
>:-)
>
>>Simon
>>
Alright already, now I'm not going to be a sore loser about it, so you
Democrats don't gloat, ok??  Sound fair??  :-)

You know, last spring I bought a bunch of Soviet emblem pins and insignias.
Symbols of a defunct system.  But I never thought my Bush/Quayle '92 button
would have to go alongslid that collection.  Geez, my posting from election
day looks like that classic photo of Truman holding up the headline saying he
had lost the 1948 election.     Simon (not a sore loser but still concerned)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7999 alt.rush-limbaugh:9111
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. facts
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:03:16 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: Bradley University

In <1992Nov2.022055.7768@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:


>	I've been really wondering about the GOP tactic of trying to
>convice the public that they are not really miserable. Assuming that
>things are really better then they seem, it strikes me as poor
>political judgement to tell the general public that they are wrong.

I know.  That's why Bush lost, with statements like "our economy is the envy
of the world".  His false optimism backfired.

>	I don't catch Rush's show often, but I'm beginning to believe that 
>I could pick any day at random, and catch Rush in at least one bold faced
>lie over the course of his show. As Rush gets more and more like _The New
>Federalist_ I've got to wonder why anyone would want information that is
>in all likelyhood, false? After all - if you have to verify everything
>somewhere else, why not get it somewhere else to start with?

People will believe lies rather than admit they're wrong, in general.
(I know that statement will come back to haunt me).  But conservative
extremists who can't find anyone to support their rantings and ravings
LOVE Rush.  They don't care if he lies; all they care about is that he
doesn't challenge their viewpoints.  Limbaugh is a safe haven for any
right extremist to be as ridiculous as they want without fear of ridicule.
From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: "Deathocrats" poem
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:10:00 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

Hey everyone.  I heard the excellent "Deathocrats" poem ("What
Deathocrats are Made of" or something like that) this morning
(Wednesday).  If anyone has the text of this poetic masterpiece,
could you post it?

Thanks.
--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: November 3, the day Rush dies!
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:40:53 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Nov5.020243.8240@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>>                           | Support the coup!
>
>	John Switzer, you are not a very good loser.

Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8515 alt.rush-limbaugh:9616 alt.politics.bush:13858 talk.bizarre:37974 alt.politics.clinton:17056 misc.legal:19881
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton,misc.legal
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 13 Nov 92 12:46:07 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:

>In article <BD.92Nov11103208@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
>>
>>I understand what the tenth amendment means, what I don't 
>>understand is what I am promoting, as a liberal, which is in 
>>violation of that amendment.
>
>Well, for a start, you might want to flip through your
>Constitution and check out the clause which authorizes the
>FDA.  Then have a good gander at the section labeled "DEA."
>After than, for kicks, you can wander down to OSHA and ask them
>which clause they have framed and hanging on their walls.  In
>fact, don't limit yourself to that; put on your jackboots and
>stroll around the DOL corridors for a while.  Then put on a
>tie-dyed shirt and take a tour of the EPA.  When you're all
>through there, check out DOT.  This should be all.  You might
>have an interesting time investigating just what it is DOA,
>HUD, and DOE do with all their loot, but I think it can
>reasonably be argued that graft, pork, and miscellaneous
>pissing-away of funds falls under the header of "general
>welfare."
>
>If you're still interested, then, you can go down to the
>law library and check out some Supreme Court rulings from
>the early Roosevelt era.  That's the second one.  Franklin.

Article 1, Section 8:  The Congress shall have the power to
                       regulate commerce with foreign nations,
                       and among the several states, and with
                       the Indian tribes.

I would suggest (and again I repeat that I am not a Constitutional
scholar) that this seems to cover many of the departments you
mention above, including EPA, DOT, FDA, OSHA, DOA, and DOE.

This discussion started with talk about the tenth amendment,
but then you end your paragraph with a few sentences which seem to 
imply that your objection to DOA, HUD, and DOE is that they are wasting 
your money, not that they are un-Constitutional.

Is your complaint that they violate the Constitution, or
that they aren't using your money the way you want them to use
it?

If it is the former, then take them to court.  My impression
is that the Supreme Court is designed to hadle issues like this, 
and since you pay taxes you clearly have standing, and have a 
right to be heard.

If it's the latter, well, that's what elections are about.  Why don't
you run for Congress?

On the DEA, we might agree.  I think a lot of the war on drugs is
not only a bad idea, but borders on un-Constitutional, as well.
-- 
   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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: fred@johnd.tamu.edu.noname (Fred Seals 5-2298)
Subject: 10 ways you can help President clinton succeed
Reply-To: fred@johnd.tamu.edu.noname
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:03:32 GMT

Top 10 things you can do to help President clinton succeed in changing
America

10.	Stop saving.
9.	Drop your health insurance.
8.	Stop saving for your child's college education.
7.	Hire your child a lawyer.
6.	Hire your child a gay lawyer.
5.	Burn your draft card.
4.	Visit Bill's favorite city - Moscow.
3.	Have an abortion.
2.	Smoke but do not inhale.
1.	Quit your job and get on the dole.






#############################################################################

Taxes are paid in the sewat of every man who labors. If those taxes are
excessive, they are reflected in idle factories, in tax-sold farms, and in 
hords of hungry people, tramping streets and seeking jobs in vain.  Our 
workers may never see a tax bill, but they pay.  They pay in deductions from
wages, in increased cost of what they buy, or in unemployment throughout the
land.   GUESS WHO SAID THIS AND WIN A PRIZE

Kemp '96

Fred Seals

#############################################################################
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Subject: Re: Rush is such a bad loser
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Date:  9 NOV 92 09:15:49 EST


In article <nate.772@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu
(Nathan Engle) writes...

>>Bill and Al have won 350+ electoral votes, a clear indicator that
>>were it note for Perot a similar landslide popular vote would have
>>resulted. 
> 
>    Don't get carried away there. There's really no way of telling which way 
>the Perot people would have gone if Ross hadn't gotten back in the race.

Actually there is. They conducted exit polls. If you can accept polls in any
form, then you must at least consider the validity of these polls as well. If
you discount all polls, then you must discount these as well. However, from
what I recall, the people who voted for Perot were split pretty evenly between
1). Bush, 2). Clinton and 3). would not have voted if not for Perot. So, it
appears to me that Perot has mostly influenced the electoral votes rather than
popular votes. If you consider electoral votes to be incidental, then it is
relevant that Clinton only got a 4/10'ths vote, and there is no mandate. Then
again, you must look at it as 6/10'ths voted against Bush, indicating that he
was definitely not the man people wanted directing the country.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.bizarre
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: 10th Amendment (Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 9 Nov 92 14:35:45 CST


In article <1dmb3tINNssu@agate.berkeley.edu>, curtis@cs.berkeley.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:
> In article <BD.92Nov9101030@fluent.UUCP> bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU writes:
> 
> |>|I'm a liberal - which one of the amendments is it I'm
> |>|supposed to not be in support of?
> |>
> |>Uh, the Tenth?
> |>
> |>Guess the water supply in Hanover is kind of low in clueides.
> |
> |The Tenth?  The one that says "The powers not delegated to the 
> |United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
> |States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people".
> |
> |I get my water from a well, and since it *is* apparently low on clueides,
> |could you explain in more detail what you're talking about?
> 
> Okay, here's the gist of it:
> 
> See, what it says is that the powers which aren't delegated to
> the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to
> the States, are reserved to the States, right, or to the people.
> 
> Hmm.  I dunno.
> 
> Is there a way to say "prohibited" in words of one syllable?

Does anyone know where the Constitution gives the Federal goverment
the power to wage a "War on Drugs"?

Just wondering...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: This is OUTRAGEOUS...
Summary: It's not just repetitive, it's...repetitive!
Organization: Still somewhere in the nation's fourth-largest city
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:09:32 GMT


[Is there an echo in here? PLH]

In article <1992Nov12.202058.20586@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>
>		November 11, 1992:
>   
>Bill Clinton (President-Elect) was at the Arkansas War 
>Veterans Memorial Service today.
>THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. A DRAFT DODGER "honoring" war
>veterans with his presence? 

Gee, I wonder if you'd have said so much as a word if your outgoing hero VP
Shrub had been the one doing the honors?

>Okay, okay. Let's just put this in perspective. 
>
>
>
>Bill Clinton at the Veterans' Day Memorial is like:
>  
>* Sinead O'Connor at Burger King 
>* Willie Horton outside prison
>* Jerry Brown having Earth citizenship 
>* Gloria Steinem chasing men 
>* Madonna teaching chastity 
>* Jack Kervorkian doing CPR  
>* Earth First! running a logging company
>* Fidel Castro joining Amnesty International
>* The Sacramento Kings at the NBA Playoffs
>* Dr. Spock giving corporal punishment 
>* David Duke in the NAACP 
>* Van Halen teaching classical music
>* Molly Yard in a swimsuit

* Steve "Dennis Hall" Chaney actually posting a rational article

--PLH (yep, it *is* kinda fun...)


--