HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: No taxes
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:44:20 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

JER4@psuvm.psu.edu (John E. Rodway) writes:
.As I have complete faith in the American people, I would like to make the
.following suggestion.  If any of you have any influence on Mr. Limbaugh, I
.urge you to suggest the following.  For Mr. Limbaugh to become the ultimate
.conservative, he should advocate the abolishment of all manditory taxes and
.make paying taxes voluntary.  Churches and charities do very well this way
.so why not the government?  Maybe we could install boxes in 'Stop and Go',
.'McDonald's', etc.  We could label them Education, Welfare, Police, Fire,
.Congress, Military, etc.,that way we would have control over how our money
.is spent.  Twice a year, we could have a telethon ala Jerry Lewis.  Of
.course, if the American people are not as generous as I expect, then we
.would have to stop some of the services that we now enjoy.  Perhaps we could
.have something similar to the United Way, where we would have voluntary
.payroll deductions and do away with the IRS.  Constructive critism welcome
.here, send flames to Mr. Limbaugh.

Sounds interesting enough. But Bush already suggested placing a box for
reducing the deficit.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: TV Station List?
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 19:19:40 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

Rush's TV show will be broadcast on Channel 3 (KCRA) in Sacramento, CA at
11:30 PM AND 11:30 AM. If I understand correctly (and I've got a 50-50
chance!) the show will run at night and be repeated the next morning. 

For my fellow dittoheads here in the Central Valley, hope this helps. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Clinton campaigns in Republican territory
Organization: ILS
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:56:23 GMT

In article <1913@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep9.154715.24703@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
> ->In article <1907@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> ->> 
> ->>  I actually broke open a cold beer when I heard that story. Now with 75,000
> ->> fans booing and 1 draft dodging article in the LA Times, maybe this race
> ->> will tighten up finally. Remember, "The media profits in a close race.".
> ->>  I did not watch the race. CNN did not play the sound track of boos. So,
> ->> can anyone who watched the race tell me, HOW LOUD WAS IT !!!!
> ->
> ->Pretty load,  but not half as funny as watching Bush dodge flying veggies
> ->in a very pro-republican suburub.
>  
>   The reason I typed (HOW LOUD WAS IT) was to point out another media bias.
> I remember when President Bush was Booed at a major league Baseball game re-
> cently (I think it was the All Star Game). Every TV news program I watched 
> actually played the sounds of the boos. Why werent we given the pleasure to
> here fellow americans booing Governor Clinton ? Did anyone actually here a
> sound recording of the Clinton Boos on a National or Local TV news program ?
> 
>  Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
> 
 

I did not watch this story on TV,  but I did read it in the paper and on
the net.  If you bother to read the article closely rather then just
positing liberal bias to it you will notice that comments from the audiance
are reported in great detail; 	

  ``Go home, cheater!'' yelled one fan.
 	``Only real men come here,'' yelled another.
 	``Draft dodger,'' yelled another spectator. ``Go Bush!''
  	As Clinton made his way up the race field, the front grandstand
   started chanting, ``We want Bush! We want Bush!''

If the press was biased and ideologically commited to putting Clinton in
office for some reason,  it would not make much sense to report Clinton
being called a "Draft dodger" now would it.

I also remeber the Clinton blew his top friday at reporters who were
questioning him about his record on the draft.  He accused them of grilling
him on this issue while they ignored new charges against Bush on
Iran-Contra.  Seems kind of strange that co-conspiritors would act in this
way?
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Rush TV in Phoenix
Organization: SPS
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 16:58:17 GMT

What is the schedule and station for the Rush TV show in Phoenix?
-- 
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.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 20:03:09 GMT

elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:


[on Quayle's mispelling of potato...]

>"There's a 
>difference between someone on the net posting spelling errors and such 
>and the Vice President doing it.  I don't want a functional illiterate 
>that close to the Oval Office..."

>>Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us<


This one goes into my "unbelieveable quotes" file.


-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: SC rally: "We don't want a draft dodger for president!"
Organization: SPS
Distribution: world,local
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 20:53:31 GMT

In article <nate.552@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
|> 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...
|> 
The founders of this country had the goal of citizen-politicians.  Ordinary
citizens would volunteer a small number of years in public service.

The idea of career politicians (Clinton has never held a private-sector job)
was offensive to them.

Something about: before you make rules about how people are required to behave
you should have some experience living under these rules.
-- 
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.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
From: mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 08:28:23 GMT

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

Yeah!  Like how to spell "prattle."  :-)

-mm-

-- 
Mark E. Mallett  MV Communications, Inc./ PO Box 4963/ Manchester NH/ 03108
Bus. Phone: 603 429 2223    Home: 603 424 8129     BIX: mmallett
Internet: mem@mv.MV.COM  ( uucp: ...{decvax|harvard}!mv!mem )
Looking for news and mail in southern NH / northern MA?  Try MV!
From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Cabinet (humorous suggestions)
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:25:37 GMT
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

In article <5181@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>For a little levity in the doldrums of politics, I'm interested in what
>you would think a Clinton cabinet would look like. We already have a little
>idea of who Clinton thinks is qualified to be Vice President and Justice of
>the Supreme Court (Marchbishop Cuomo). It has even been remarked that
>Hillary will get a Cabinet position (like Secretary of State, not Attorney
>General -- can't remember the source). So anyone out there please fill
>in the following blanks (humor please) with regards to who you think will
>be in a Clinton cabinet (and other executive office positions).

Two of these are easy.  Defense and Atty Gen.

>Secretary of State
Mikhail Gorbachev

>Secretary of Defense
"Patsy" Schroeder, courtesy of Rush

>Secretary of Treasury
take your pick:  Bob Mrazek (972 bounced checks), Charles Hatcher
(819), Doug Wallace (858), Stephen Solarz (743), Charlie Hayes (716),
Alan Cranston, Don Riegle

>Attorney General
Anita Hill

>Secretary of the Interior
the spotted owl

>Secretary of Health and Human Services
Ted Kennedy, he'll give you "human services"

>Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Mitch Snyder

>Secretary of Energy
eliminated.  Energy is bad for the environment.

>Secretary of Labor
George Steinbrenner

>Secretary of Education
Oliver Stone, the perfect revisionist

>Chief of Staff
Hillary

>National Security Advisor
eliminated.  They "helped" make the world safe.

>Surgeon General
Dr. Kevorkian

>Director of Office of Management and Budgeting (?)
budget?  what budget?

>Federal Reserve Board Chairman
Robert McNamara, giving him a chance to screw yet another thing up

Agitator
  #->

"A political deadend."                  Bruce Herschensohn for U.S. Senate!!!
    --Gore on the Vice Presidency when    Not the ten-year       //  The REAL
      asked about a Dukakis-Gore ticket   Congress insider      //   outsider
--------------- R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G ------------\\ //------------
IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer?           \X/  Only AMIGA!
========================================== Bring Back the Caltech Cannon!! ==
Roderick Lee, HMC '91      "The Professional Agitator"      agitator@ucsd.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4295 talk.politics.misc:43859
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:21:58 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Sep4.005508.22377@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
> In article <21.X92001@ramona.com> jwest@ramona.com (Jim Western) writes:
> : Los Angeles (UPI) - This morning, in a speech to Southern California
> : aircraft workers, President George Bush announced the sale of 50
> : ultra-tech F-15E fighter planes to Iraq. The fleet will replace Iraq's
> : air force which was stolen by Iran during the Gulf War. Each plane
> : will be delivered with a complimentary, specially-tooled version of
> : The Club anti-theft device. "I want to be the Jobs President," said Bush
> : to the cheering throng.
> 
> 	This is a joke, right?

	Yeah, he's mad that we sold F-16s to Taiwan--"the butchers of
Tianamen".  One wonders how long it will be until he looks at a map and says
"oops".

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.activism.d
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: A journalist speaks on media bias
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:37:19 GMT

aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:

>In <1992Aug26.034622.4291@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

>>This is difficult for me to believe, although without some kind of 
>>evidence to the contrary, I will assume you're not lying about it.
>>I have seen very few newspapers endorse the Republican ticket.  I've
>>been all across this country and without exception (no matter how
>>objective the news stories) the OpEd page has been flaming liberal.
>>Would you please elaborate?  How do you reconcile this with the fact
>>that the press is predominantly liberal?

> 	I'll agree that most papers are liberal, but have you ever read the

Could you guys tell me where you live?  Every newspaper on the west
coast is pretty conservative.  Here in Portland, the Oregonian hasn't
endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate in many decades -- although
they might have a hard time going with Bushie this time.  The editorial
page is loaded with people like Will, Kilpatrick and the Oregonian's
resident right-wing creep. They even run an anti-enviromentalist
environmental column, and every once in a while they run one by a real
environmentalist.  They have one local columnist that many here would
probably call a "liberal".  That's it.

As far as liberal San Francisco goes, you ever hear of William Randolph
Hearst?

Sheesh.

jeff frane


>Indianapolis Star?  I doubt that it has ever endorsed a Democratic pres.
>candidate.


>Andrew Aiken
-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) 
"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe."
                                    --Thomas Jefferson
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Carter bad, Bush good?
Date: 6 Sep 92 15:32:52 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus


	One of the mantras of the right is the Clinton will "take us back to
the days for Jimmy Carter". Some ofthe more zelous Bush supporters will tell
us about the gas lines that inspired Carter to impose a 55mph mandated speed 
limit on the states (that was actually Nixon in '73) or talk about the 12%
unemployment rates (real rates ranged from 6% to 7%), the list goes on.

	Graciously, there are other sources of information, more reliable then
Mike Schwartz and his ilk, to provide alternate numbers. These latest figures
come from the NYT Market Watch column:

	Changes in private sector jobs, as a percentage of the total
	76-80	up 	13.92%
	80-84	up  	7.30%
	84-88	up	12.05%
	88-92	down	0.04%

	Not that the news is all bad, the word is that Poverty has hit a 10
year high (as a percentage of population) and a 24 year high (as a count of
individuals), and these figures don't include homeless people, so the GOP can
be assured that the Reagan/Bush administration has put and end to the welfare
queens of old.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
The feminist agenda is a socialist, anti-family political movement that 
encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice 
witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians. - Pat Robertson 1992
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Subject: Re: Carter bad, Bush good?
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 19:34:30 GMT

In article <6177@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>Yes, how "poor" is someone who OWNS their own home (as 40% of those
>in the latest group of poverty stricken people do), have air
>conditioning, color TV, own automobiles, etc.
>
>"Poor" people in the US are better off than just about everyone
>in most parts of Africa, Asia, and South America.  

This is a pretty sad little statement.  I guess as long as there are people 
somewhere with even less than "our" poor people, then the damn poor folks
oughtta quit their bitchin', huh?

And this thing about 40% of poor owning color TVs, etc.  Where does this
factoid come from?

And what exactly does it mean?  40% of those earning below the poverty line
still make house payments?  Or that lots of retired folks on Social Security
have retired their mortgages already?  Ever tried to live on $600 a month and
keep your family fed and clothed?  Unless you can pull out some more revealing
information about this, I will have to assume it's a little raisin plucked from
a census bureau report or Heritage Foundation study, for use by people to rail
against the "welfare state."  Kind of like that old sham about the welfare
queen picking up her monthly check in a cadillac, whick RR so loved to tell.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: john@anasazi.com (John R. Moore)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Reply-To: john@anasazi.com
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:07:42 GMT

Keywords: 

In article <PLuyqB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
]Here in New Orleans, on WWL radio, Limbaugh runs from 1-4.  I had WWL on at
]about 3:55 to catch the WSJ report, and heard Uncle Rush close the show.  He
]was telling his audience of highly literate and intelligent listeners not to
]worry about anything important over the weekend because he was going to tell
]them how to think on Monday.  Yup, we're dealing with a serious education
]problem in the US if Limbaugh is telling 13 million folks how to think.

Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that Limbaugh is kidding
when he says that. Listen to him for a bit and you'll realize that he
is very much an entertainer. By the way, I was also listening to that
show, and I heard it too, but I recognize humour.

-- 
John Moore NJ7E, 7525 Clearwater Pkwy, Scottsdale, AZ 85253  (602-951-9326)
john@anasazi.com ncar!noao!asuvax!anasaz!john anasaz!john@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
"Government is the agent of those who are too refined to do their own mugging."
  Joseph Sobran
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A journalist speaks on media bias
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:06:32 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep10.150945.14421@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>Pardon me, but if I hear any more snivelling from "conservatives" about
>the so-called "liberal bias" of the media, I think I'll have to puke.  

 This is great. Someone asks for proof of liberal bias. We start pro-
viding it. Then we are accused of whining. This reminds me of the liberal
argument that the press is pro-military.

  "They always promote military spending and say the weapon systems work"

  I counter by providing specific examples showing that 60 minutes and 
 others have done numerous stories showing waste, fraud and that the
 weapon systems are unsafe and dont function.

 "They are doing that so more money is given to make the weapon systems
  better"

  I counter that 60 minutes did its anti-apache article while the congress
 debated whether to purchase more. They almost cancelled the project.

 See how a liberal can create a no win situation for conservatives. We
dont have good enough examples. What you have examples, you must be whin-
ing. 

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4749 alt.news-media:1300 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3684
From: lmg@natinst.com (Louis Gomes)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 14 Sep 1992 10:07:35 -0500
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <1992Sep14.121218.19645@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
>Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>
>
>I don't actually know why I'm responding to a posting from New Zealand...
>As if people there actually KNOW anything about American politics, or,
>for that matter, should be sticking their noses into our countries
>political scene...
>
>.....
>
>As if you would really have the credentials to judge who should and shouldn't
>be in US political office. Leave that to people who know.
>

Why is it that I keep looking for the smiley, yet I find none? Excuse
me, am I the only one who finds this innuendo extremely offensive?

When every American has an opinion over who should be in power anywhere
from the Phillipines, to Iraq, to Haiti, Michael has decided that the
US elections are the business of Americans and Americans alone, and
everyone else should cower away in shame for even expressing an opinion!

Listen, he's not arguing he should vote! He's just expressing his
opinion. When has this become distasteful? Or do you underestimate the
effect that an American presidency in the wrong hands could have in
New Zealand, among other places?

As for dismissing his arguments on the basis of where his posting
originates, that is just pure rubbish. Statistically, he's better
informed about the issues involved in the election than 95% of the
American electorate who get most of their opinions of the candidates
from People magazine. So, could we have a rational discussion without
making anyone feel unwelcome by your chauvinistic ramblings?

Thank you!

louis.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4515 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5233
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Date: 10 Sep 92 18:37:32 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <aaiken.716137836@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 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 suppose that with 
->Time-Warner as a major contributor to those forward-looking young men
->who are eminently deserving of titular as well as moral authority,
->"everyone else" must be precisely the target of Clinton's vengance.
->Maybe Clinton should lecture an out-of-work maker of luxury boats 
->about the necessity of class warfare.

 Good Point. What I want to know is - Why dosent the Media label Clinton as
     a Rich Basher ? Is it because it dosent have a nice ring to it ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4715 alt.news-media:1289 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3658
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Clinton Screws Up!  Press Reports It!
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:07:15 GMT

In a startling change of events this morning, my newspaper actually
had a (short) paragraph on a recent Clinton faux pas.  

Seems at a campaign stop he railed on the big spending we were doing
on military weapons systems and brought up the Patriot which "can fly
through doors and down chimineys."  Hmmmm.  Probably just an honest
mistake from somebody who doesn't know a good offense from a bad
defense...

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:40:52 GMT

In article <1916@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
> So, the reporter accussed conservatives of being homophobic and that single
>mothers have no values. What proof did he offer of this ? Why, he probably
>was basing his accussations on previous biased media coverage. Obviously,
>this reporter has never watched Dan unedited on CSPAN.

	You would _never_ know this from the speeches at the
Republican National Convention and some of the other speeches Quayle
has made.

	I detect a hint of insincerity in these remarks; something
like denying a position one has explicitly stated just to win friends.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh