HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tar@naucse.cse.nau.edu (Tim Roeder)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Summary: Didn't the deregulation...
Date: 27 Jul 92 14:17:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff AZ

The discussion revolves around whether or not Carter was (is?) partially
responsible for the S&L crisis.

I'm really not sure, but didn't the bank deregulation era begin around
1978, when Carter was still in office?

Regards,


-- 
Timothy A. Roeder                            Fidonet:  Timothy Roeder 1:300/24
3551 S. San Joaquin Rd.                      Internet: tar@naucse.cse.nau.edu
Tucson, AZ  85746                                      troeder@mis.arizona.edu
(602) 578-9115                                        
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3870 rec.arts.misc:348 rec.music.christian:5354
From: tony@microware.co.uk (Tony Mountifield)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.misc,rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: Judgmentalism (was Re: Whose Truth?)
Date: 27 Jul 92 12:08:31 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Microware Systems (UK) Ltd., Winchester, UK.

In article <1992Jul25.090952.9351@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.232016.4623@pictel.com> harling@pictel.com (Dan Harling) writes:
> 
> >While the rulings may change, the reality stays the same.  Jesus was
> >very clear that lust is as sinful as adultery, and both separate you
> >from God.  That is, ultimately, the definition of sin.  Making such a
> >distinction may do more harm than good.a
> 
> The sort of hair-splitting in this debate may be one of the main reasons
> for the decline of Christianity.  It completely misses the point of
> _why_ adultery is a sin,

Which is? (IYHO :-)

>                          and thus loses a powerful relevence to today's
> society.

This sounds interesting. Could you please explain? (This is not flame-bait).

Tony.
-- 
Tony Mountifield     (G4CJO)       | Microware Systems (UK) Ltd.
Email:  tony@microware.co.uk       | Colden Common, WINCHESTER, SO21 1TH.
(or:  ...!uknet!mwuk!tony)         | Tel: 0703 601990   Fax: 0703 601991
------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Any opinions are mine, not Microware's - but you knew that anyway. **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The real deal
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:29:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: psygate.nate.397
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
>jroberts@vax1.umkc.edu () writes:
>>Despite all of the atttention given to the Rush Limbaugh Fan Club, not all of
>>it is good.  Some of it, including mine, is false.  

[stuff deleted]

>>That's all I have to say about Rush Limbaugh.  My opinion may not matter 
>>much to some of the loyal listeners to his shows, but at least I'm 
>>thinking.

>I don't
>mind his arrogance so much but I do object to his lack of tolerance for
>anyone who disagrees with him.

    Can you give some specific examples of this intolerance? What are the 
criteria by which Rush is intolerant? I would have thought that a guy who's
willing to put Joel Santistiban on the air would have to be fairly tolerant 
(and Joel disagrees with Rush on just about everything I've ever heard 
him talk about). Joel was on yesterday and it was evident to me that 
although the two were in complete disagreement, there was also a certain 
amount of mutual respect and camaraderie.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: The depth of Right wing BS
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 21 Jul 92 13:27:08 CDT


In article <1992Jul21.145543.23931@umbc3.umbc.edu>, alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> In article <mykes.09de@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> 
> >Yes, 4 more years.  The price of gold went up $5 today on the
> >latest polling data.
> 
> 	Keep your day job mike, the financial markets can wait for your
> talents. Gold is indeed up, as it has been climbing for some time, but
> most analysts would tie that to the fall of the dollar, which has been
> dropping steadily. Right now, Gold is a much better investment then cash,
> unless the cash is in Yen or Marks.

The Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday (Monday) that compared
the stock market results under Dems & Repubs since 1900.  The Market
did slightly better under the Dems, althought it was close enought to 
be concidered a statistical tie.  Reagan/Bush edged out Carter ~15% to
12% increase, but I'm sure that if Reagan's years were separated from
Bush's four, that Carter's years beat Bush's.

Carter also had more economic growth, smaller deficits, and lower 
unemployment than Bush.  

> 	What is going up, as a result of the latest poll, is that fear
> level among right wingers that Clinton will win. This won't effect the
> markets as much as it will put a halt to the right wing agenda that
> has been working its way through the country in recent years. The
> bottom line is that we can expect the Dems to get blamed for
> everything from the current unemployment rate to apeasing Saddam
> Hussian.
> 
> 	I noticed that Bush is now saying the same things about
> Clintons economic policies that he said about Reagans economic
> policies. Pretty funny, comong from a man who has presided over the
> slowest economy since WWII.
> 
> 	I've gotta admit, it's fun to watch.

The bottom line is that the Dems will not win the presidency until
a Repub has a worse economic record than Carter.  Bush has provided
that worse record.

-- 
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!)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3840 alt.rush-limbaugh:3105
From: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 25 Jul 92 17:17:35 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

In article <1992Jul24.150219.21396@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>	KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
>
>	QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
>	decision.

>	My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.

Really, Alex, you don't have to resort to intellectual dishonesty.  In the
interview, the inflection was clear: Quayle emphasized the phrase "my daughter."
So what did he mean?  He meant that he would try to dissuade his daughter, but
as it is legal under _Roe_ for her to get an abortion and he has no legal right
to stop her, he would have to deal with the reality of the situation.  He would
hate her decision and lover his daughter as person none the less.

I mean, really!  Plenty of liberals have posted to the board already, demon-
strating that *they* are intelligent enough to understand the distinction
between supporting a person and supporting his/her actions.  Why can't *you*
grasp this distinction? Surely you're not stupid?  My guess is you just
can't let any chance go to bash Quayle (or any Republican, for that matter),
even if you have to lie to do it.

My mother smokes;  I hate the fact that she does so and wish she would stop,
but that does not diminish my love for her.  Maybe you have an analogous
dilemma in your life?


+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Cloud-gathering Zeus     |Think globally.          |
|                         |Act locally.             |
|zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |Eat my shorts totally.   |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: husbands@epas.utoronto.ca (Mark A. Husbands)
Subject: Re: Broadcast Frequency and Timetable Sought
Organization: University of Toronto - EPAS
Distribution: ba
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 05:34:18 GMT

It would be most helpful if someone who is in possession of the
knowledge regarding how I can hear Rush Limbaugh here in Toronto -
broadcast time and station, would take the time to share it with me.

Thank You.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: EQUITY and Barbara Jordon
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:56:42 GMT

In article <mykes.09gl@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>The gas lines were before 1974.  Nixon was president during the oil embargo.
>But the prime lending rate WAS pushing 20% when Carter left office.  And,
>no, Carter had nothing to do with Watergate - BCCI definately, but Watergate
>no.

	Is there any evidance to link Carter with BCCI, or is this just a
random accusation? I was under the imression that no one had been able
to find any real dirt about that.

	Lessee: A poster blamed Carter for 12% unemployment, 20% lending
rates and long gas lines. Two out of three are bullshit, and the last is
exaggerated. Mike Schwartz defends the one plausable comment of the three,
and adds more bullshit to the pile.

	And you wonder why you have no credability (But don't worry, good
dittoheads will swollow every word, they don't care if it's true).




-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3702 alt.rush-limbaugh:2943
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Unofficial Summary for Thursday, July 16, 1992
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 18 Jul 92 06:44:32 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <x3=mkaa.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
> Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show
>
> for Thursday, July 16, 1992
>
> by John Switzer
>

[ ... ]

> o       Former Senator John C. Culver and former Representative
> Michael D. Barnes have invited Rush to a reception in honor of
> Senator Kennedy and his new bride Victoria Reggie at the Water
> Club in New York City. Rush plays with his gurgling cod to repeat
> the sounds of the last few bubbles reaching the surface at
> Chappaquiddick. Unfortunately, Rush won't be able to attend
> because of prior commitments.
>

If Jay Leno did this, liberals would have thought this was really
funny.  I, personally, was on the floor, practically in tears.
Hilarious.

> o       Rush returns to the survey on family values in this
> week's Newsweek. The survey was of 104 top TV writers and
> executives, and the results were compared to the nation at large.
> Only 41% of the Hollywood crowd believes adultery is wrong, while
> 85% of the nation thinks it is wrong. Almost 45% of the
> Hollywoodites have no religious affiliation, compared to 4% in
> the country at large. On whether homosexual activities are
> morally wrong, 20% of Hollywood believe this, while the figure is
> 76% for the rest of the country. 97% of the Hollywood crowd
> believe that a woman has a right to an abortion, while 59% of the
> nation believes this.
>
> Rush comments that Dan Quayle may have been on to something, and
> Newsweek's headline is "the people who make TV shows really are
> different."
>

These kinds of numbers would likely be similar if they surveyed
the TV News industry, too.  Gotta be skeptical, real skeptical,
if you watch TV...

> o       Rush says that Linda Bloodworth Thomason, producer of the
> Designing Women TV show, is one of Clinton's advisors. It was her
> idea to have Clinton walk through the men's department at Macy's
> last night and then walk down 33rd Street to Madison Square
> Garden. This is what Jimmy Carter did in 1977, and she thought it
> looked really good. Rush compliments her for not having Clinton
> walk through the lingerie department.

But if Teddy were the nominee, it would be perfect :)

[ ... ]

--
Author of Amiga GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle,
and Genesis Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3659 alt.rush-limbaugh:2907
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Remember when?
Date: 21 Jul 92 14:03:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: peak.LARRY.92Jul21070325
	<LARRY.92Jul20092224@peak.psl.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Jul20.184612.11585@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

In article <1992Jul20.184612.11585@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (andrew carlton aiken) writes:
   In <LARRY.92Jul20092224@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:

   >I guess it's approaching time for the Grand Jubilee, New World Order 
   >currency and all. That'll square it up. Be prepared for a little change in
   >your lifestyle though.

	   Why?  Why not simply dismantle the federal bureaucracy instead?

   Andrew Aiken

Well, that would certainly upset the 50%+ of Americans supposedly
receiving some sort of government entitlements, would it not?

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..
Yo! Bottoms up! US motto. Boy!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.misc,rec.music.christian
From: caw@gtech.com (Christopher A. White)
Subject: Re: School Prayer/Moment of Silence
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich, RI
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:33:16 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.150900.27315@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>	I'm not familiar with a case where a student was prohibited from
>carrying a bible, or reading it in their own time. Certainly, if there 
>were such an incident, the ACLU would happily fund a court challenge, and
>since there has been no challange (that I am aware of) I conclude that 
>your stories are urban myth.
>
>	If someone would provide me with the name and town of a school
>that prohibited students from carrying bibles, I will personally investigate
>and report on the situation. Until then, I can only presume that these
>accusations are fiction, designed to strengthen the overall agenda of
>adding religion to the basic school curriculum.

I have heard of many cases where students were prohibited from carrying
Bibles and/or praying in school (most recently in a 1991 decision review
covering the cases of freedom of religion in schools). In every case the
school either reversed its decision in preliminaries or was defeated in
court.

Another interesting thing to look at is the most recent supreme court ruling,
which states (in part) that a student at a graduation ceremony (for example)
who prays, *even if it is while giving a speech as part of commencement*, is
allowed to do so and no action can be taken against the school or the student
unless the school cannot plausably deny pre-knowledge of it.

The other really interesting part of the ruling is that it only applies up
through High School. After that, individuals are believed to be mature 
enough to discern that no endorsement of any particular religion is implied.

Can you imaging be court defined as immature?!?!? %-)

Topher
-- 
 Christopher A. White                    |"What's behind the words?
 caw@gtech.com                           | Images they know will please us.
 GTech Corporation, West Greenwich, RI   | I'll take what's real, bring up
 The opions expressed are mine alone     |   the lights." -- Queensryche
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:3759 alt.rush-limbaugh:3003
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:25:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: psygate.nate.374
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>->    Well, maybe it's unfair of me to do so, but I'm still old-fashioned 
>->enough to hold Reagon at least partly responsible for the S&L mess. 

> I think both partys were responsible for creating the situation. Yes,
>Reagan was partially responsable.  
> Whats really sad is that the Fourth Estate is saying that all the S and L
>bailout money is going to the greedy rich 80's type. So are they saying
>that the middle class and poor people with savings under 100,000 dollars 
>are greedy rich 80's types ? 

    I think that what they're actually saying is not that the bail-out
money is being paid directly to those greedy rich 80's types, but rather
that it's being paid *because* of their mismanagement and fraud. And, at
least in some small part, it's being paid because of an idea championed 
by that nice old man, Ron Reagon.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:28:42 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 21396@umbc3.umbc.edu, alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>	KING: What if your daughter grew up and had a problem, came to you
>	and with that problem that all fathers fear? How would you deal with
>	it?
>	QUAYLE: Well, it is a hypothetical situation. I hope that I never
>	do have to deal with it, but obviously ----
>	KING: What would you do?
>	QUAYLE: I would council her and talk to her and support her on 
>	whatever decision she made?
>	KING: And if the decision was abortion, yould support her, as a parent?
>	QUAYLE: I'd support my daughter. I'd hope thath she wouldn't make that
>	decision.
>The New York Times, in a fit of liberalness, did not draw any conclusions
>from the statment, but did quote leaders from both "Opponents of Legal 
>abortion" and "Supporters of abortion rights".
>	My own problem is that, for Quayles perspective, he essentially
>is saying that he would support his daughter if she chose to become a
>murderer. Given that he is actively trying to make abortion illegal,
>one could conclude that abortion is ok for his daughter, but not ok for
>anybody else. After all, if your willing to go to great lengths to keep
>stranges from performing a sinful act, then you should be willing to go
>at least that far for your own kids.
>Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

Ever heard of the saying, "Do as I say, not as I do?"

---
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:	The opinions expressed are mine and mine alone
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The price of freedom
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:21:24 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Jul23.090415.24601@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>                         1980              1989
>                         ----              ----
>GNP                     2,732.0          5,200.8
>yearly deficit             73.0            152.0
>% of GNP                  2.67%            2.92%
>
>National Debt             907.7          2,857.4
>% of GNP                  33.2%            54.9%
>

 I posted a response which included my source prior to responding here. 
Whats very interesting about these figures is the GNP line. Check it out.
Gross National Product nearly doubled during the 80's, while the yearly
deficit doubled. This means that the economy boomed and deficits stayed
indexed to it. Were this figures indexed with inflation to ?
 Check out the National Review article I posted which details how Reagan
was lowering the yearly deficit and how it was going to continue to lower
under Bush. When reagan left, congress had more power and undid every
thing that reagans administration invoked. What gets conservatives mad
is that President Bush let congress undo the spending controls and veto
threat that was in place. He now says that he was worried about the costs
to wage Desert Shield and Desert Storm. My guess is that he bought off 
enough democratic congress members (by giving them spending increases)
so they would vote for the use of force. Gee, Why did Senator Gore support
the use of force ?
  I actually said something bad about Bush. How will my closed
  mind ever handle it :>

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The real deal
From: jroberts@vax1.umkc.edu
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 19:22:44 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri - Kansas City

Despite all of the atttention given to the Rush Limbaugh Fan Club, not all of
it is good.  Some of it, including mine, is false.  

The only reason I listen to him is to get an idea of how stupid someone can
really be.  His problem is that he has captured the hearts of many listeners
who don't want to think for himself.  Instead, he thinks for them.  That's why
he's one of the most listened-to talk-show hosts in the country.

Another thing about him that pisses me off is his arrogance.  I heard him
talking to an African-American about the Rodney King issue once.  The man
seemed to be more intelligent than Rush because whenever he disputed something
that he said, Rush cut him off.  That just sums up his one big problem:  no
matter how many newspapers or magazines or journals you read every day, you'll
always be known as the man who dropped out of college and always seems to be
frightened of any caller to your show that has one and disagrees with you 100%

That's all I have to say about Rush Limbaugh.  My opinion may not matter much
to some of the loyal listeners to his shows, but at least I'm thinking.

							J. C. Roberts
							University of Missouri-
							   Kansas City
===============================================================================
"If you have no confidence in self, then you are twice defeated in the race of
life.  With confidence, you have won the battle even before it has begun."
						
							Marcus Garvey
================================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh