HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ged1@crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle)
Subject: Re: ENGLE: up to his old tricks (>)
Keywords: Engle
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 12 Nov 92 16:55:18 GMT

Hmm, maybe you should read the rest of my letters?

	Seems that I should take my own advice: notice that what I think is
	wrong is the method, not the means.  I am sure that Engle has much
	to say of his own and I respect those opinions.  What I don't respect
	is the way he systematically chops up thought and does his best to
	show that he disagrees without coming up with constructive solutions
	and thought.  Where would a nation of criticizers get us? It really
	does seem that many of today's liberals (and conservatives) can do
	nothing more than take someone's idea and find what is wrong with it
	as opposed to what will work and how to implement those things.  As
	I have said elsewhere, someone has to come up with the original
	thought.  Maybe now you see that I place value in criticism, but only
	when it is followed with some thought.
	Engle himself admits, also check out his writings, that he spends
	most of his time arguing with others' points.
From: drevik@utkvx3.utk.edu (Drevik, Steve)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter,) Amen!
Date: 4 Nov 92 21:32:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Tennessee Computing Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1d986aINN42q@spool.mu.edu>, marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes...
>In article <grendel.720903878@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <1992Nov4.182120.27689@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> tcanham@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Canham) writes:
>>John F. Kennedy smoked marijuana.
>>Dan Quayle dodged the draft.
>>>George Washington has probably turned over in his grave.

Jack Kemp evaded the draft. Clarence Thomas smoked pot.  Dan
Quayle smoked pot.  It was called the 60's.  You'd be suprised
who did what.  It's unrealistic to apply 90's values to then.

-s
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9189 alt.politics.bush:13417
From: lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Witch Hunt Time!!
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:01:56 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC

In article <1992Nov5.192612.16343@odin.corp.sgi.com>, archer@elysium.esd.sgi.com (Archer Sully) writes:
|> In <Eey7w2G00WAwE3I3Zi@andrew.cmu.edu> ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
|> *
|> *On behalf of Ollie North, I laugh in your face.
|> *
|> *They've had 5 years to get indictments.  They've gotten how many?  How
|> *many turned into convictions?
|> 
|> Its very difficult to get in indictments (let alone convictions) when 
|> the evidence that the defense hasn't already shredded is controlled by 
|> their backers.

It's also very hard (though not impossible) to get indictments (let
alone convictions) when there haven't been any crimes committed.  Let's
look at all of the possibilities.  While a lack of convictions doesn't 
prove the non-existence of a crime, it seems unfair to assume that it
proves the existence of a crime.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: Hey! Now It's All CLINTON's Fault!
XXXDate: Thu, 5 Nov 92 23:22:25 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A71EFAC1CC010642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Distribution: usa
Date: 05 Nov 92 23:32:08 GMT

In article <J1RSBL2Y@cc.swarthmore.edu> Rob Brooks, rbrooks1@cc.swarthmore.edu
writes:
>Um, I think we're kind of missing the point here.  I was under the
>impression that the way to rebuild a country was to work with its leaders,
>not "throw stones" at them.  I'm as guilty of Reagan/Bush bashing as the
>next guy but, as Bush and Perot both said on election night, it's time to
>stop attacking the other parties and time to work together to rebuild
>America.  

Hey, after 12 years of having the president(s) I voted for slammed I don't
think I am missing the point at all. It is not that I don't want him to
succeed, I just happen to know he is going to screw us up far worse. At
least I get four years of bashing somebody else's 'sorry excuse' to 
elevate my humor. 

IMHO things were going fine: Less government intervention and someone to 
veto those ridiculous laws and expenditures. I've been asking my brain dead
congresscritters to cooperate with Bush for the last four years to little
avail. Now I have to ask them to put the brakes on the Democrats for the
next four years!

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9522 alt.politics.bush:13812 alt.politics.clinton:16949 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8447 alt.politics.elections:23567
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE - NOT!!
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:51:32 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
'joec@fid.morgan.com (Joe Collins) writes:
'>
'>Bill Clinton did not win in a landslide at all....he won a simple
'>plurality, i.e. more votes than anyone else. In fact, some 57-58%
'>of all voters voted for someone OTHER than Bill Clinton, i.e.
'>a BIG majority of voters opted for someone other than Bill Clinton.
'
'Well -- you could look at it another way: some 62% of all voters voted for
'someone OTHER than George "Herbert Hoover" Bush.

Yeah, but Bush lost with 62% against. Clinton won with 55-58% against.

'Yes, he won a popular plurality (even if it was an electoral landslide), not
'a majority.

'>Secondly...The democrats, on balance, lost ground in Congress.
'
'Huh?  I though that the Dems GAINED ground in Congress.  Didn't they reach
'60 members in the Senate -- enough to break a Republican filibuster?  I call
'that quite a significant gain.

Not yet. Democrats gained a net of one right now for 57 Dems total with
one more seat (GA) up for grabs. Democrats lost about 15-20 seats in the
House (net).

'I undertand that the Dems DID lose in STATE assemblies, though, for the most
'part.

Not in the governors races though. I think they gained 2 or 3.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Let the Blame Games BEGIN!
In-reply-to: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu's message of Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:03:04 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Date: 8 Nov 92 12:44:31

In article <BxC6D4.GJK@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:

>   could not have done better. He campaigned as the heir to Reagan, and
>   easily defeated Mondull; he then governed just as Fritz would have, and
>   with the same results vis-a-vis the economy. 

Can we assume that your references to Mondull and Fritz are in reality
to Fritz Mondale?  Are we talking, then, about the 1980 election?  Are you
trying to say that Bush was responsible for Reagan's win?  And for the
first 8 years of the Reagan-Bush years, and that the 80's were just as
Mondale, were he president, via some, as yet undisclosed magic, would
have run them?  You mean to say that no credit can be given to
trickle-down?  Or was that Mondale's plan?  Please explain how this
works.  It is clearly much more complicated and deviously interwoven
than I had ever thought.  Do Elvis and JFK have their hands in it too,
from that island where they've been living the past few years?

>   Ken Mitchell
 
Enlighten us, Ken.  I know you can do it.

Peter
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: confused@cwis.unomaha.edu (stephen richard smith)
Subject: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Summary: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Keywords: rush.limbaugh
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:36:27 GMT



  If a couple of arrogant facists( didn't see any Bush supporters attempting
to silence all the Clinton socialists,did we now)<-NOTICE THE FUCKING COMMA
 ASSHOLE have the power (I doubt it-unless they started the group)to remove
 alt.rush let them. I will have a replacement up within one-two weeks. And
 anyone of any political bent will be welcome. Because unlike Mr. MAC and
 that other ASS.True Rush fans are not afraid of opposing political views.


 FOR four yrs we prayed that nothing would happen to Bush(although Quayle is
fully capable of assuming the duties) now we pray that nothing happens to 
Clinton- imagine OZONE head as president? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH
--
__________________________________________________________________________
| the federal government is basically one enormous, ongoing meeting from |
| HELL-----Dave Barry                                                    |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bdewey@grok116.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM (Bob Dewey)
Subject: Re: Chameleon Clinton
Organization: NCR Corp., Columbia SC
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 92 15:04:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.023056.8398@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Oct29.150644.5971@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>The most important point about this is that you fools who think that 
>>Quayle mispelled `potatoe' are clueless.  Indeed `potato' is the prefered 
>>spelling, but `potatoe' is a valid (although #2) spelling.  Look it up 
>>in Websters New World Dictionary.
>
>	Let's see a show of hands for all the people who belive that
                                                         ^^^^^^
>Dan Quayle knew about the two spellings of the word at the time of
>the incident.
>
You should speak , but then you are not a VP candidate.  Also I do
BELIEVE he was given a card with the answer printed on it and was only
reading what was given to him.

>	Face it: Quayle screwed up. It's a small gaffe, but a gaffe none the
>less, and apologising for it demeans you both.
>
>
>-- 
>                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
>  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
>   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
>                                                       - Robert Dole


-- 
Bob Dewey                       e-mail: Bob.Dewey@ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM 
Customer Satisfaction, MSBU        fax: (803) 739-7317
MCPD Columbia                    phone: (803) 791-6425 or VoicePlus 632-6425
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: ged1@crux3.cit.cornell.edu (Gregory E. Daigle)
Subject: WELFARE RECIPIENTS = LIBERALS
Summary: Limbaugh is right
Keywords: limbaugh
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Date: 10 Nov 92 05:00:18 GMT

How about that Eye-catching title?
	Anyway, I can't believe how pedantic these liberals are getting.  These
	people are so joyous over this Clinton victory that they can't see the
	forest from the trees.  My only guess is that they think that they 
	might be on welfare under Clinton and want the extra cash his redistrib-        ion of wealth might provide.  Not to jump on the socialism bandwagon
	but does this sound familiar?
	Clinton wants to take his Arkansas party to the White House where he 
	will be in for a rude awakening.  Arkansas the United States is not.
	Clinton had 12 years in Arkansas and look what he did. (Nothing, for
	all of you tye-dyed liberals out there blinded by purported social
	reforms)  He hasn't got that much time with the US and will have to
	deal with more beaurocracy, not to mention foreign policy, which will
	be different from trying to get Mississippi to agree on a country 
	music coalition.  Okay, actually I'm not writing this to make smart
	comments but rather to ask these liberals to wake up and start 
	addressing the issues and not blaming people for the problems.  Clinton
	can't do it, in four years we'll see that...maybe Hillary could?

		Jack Kemp in '96!
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9607 talk.abortion:47813
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 13 Nov 1992 08:23:35 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com
Keywords: abortion, slavery

In article <1121@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

>If this is true, why isn't it also true after birth?  After a child is
>born, his parents must see to his welfare (or see that he is put in someone
>else's, but that case, they are responsible until someone else has assumed
>the responsibility, i.e. they can't just abandon him), and if they don't,
>they can be charged with crimes. 


It's really very simply if you take a giant step backward and look at the
big picture.

When society-at-large can offer an alternative, then society-at-large can
and will make certain assumptions about behavior if the alternative is not
utilized.  And society-at-large can and will make laws based upon the 
behaviors -- when an alternative is available.

Therefore, since giving up one's children for adoption IS an alternative,
society presumes people who haven't given up their children for adoption have
voluntarily undertaken to raise those children, and won't look kindly upon
efforts to do them in.  In fact, if society becomes convinced that you are
GOING to do your children in, society will seize those children, and you
have to go to court to get 'em back (and maybe lose).  This because the
OPTION of adoption defines your behavior as voluntary because you have not
elected the option.

Now, when society does not/cannot offer an alternative, this series of
assumptions, behaviors and ramifications does not occur.  Society can
offer an option to parenthood, but it cannot offer an option to pregnancy.

Adrienne Regard
From: dejst5+@pitt.edu (David   E Joslin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Predictions for 1993
Date: 6 Nov 92 03:42:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Nov5.154905.60438@cc.usu.edu> jaceb@cc.usu.edu writes:
>With regards to the file "PREDICTIONS FOR 1993", I don't think that Rush has
>ever denied being biased.  He claims, correctly, that he IS equal time. 
>Somebody has to balance out the media's bias.

So we can't trust the liberal media.  But since Rush twists the truth
in the opposite direction, we can't trust Rush, either.  

Balance?  Since when do two lies make a truth?  

Turning to Rush to learn about politics is like turning to "Married
with Children" to learn about parenting skills.  Learn to tell the
difference between news and entertainment.

David
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
XXXDate: Fri, 6 Nov 92 21:54:35 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
XXXMessageID: <A72037AB99010642@steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: U S WEST, MRG
NntpPostingHost: steve_martin.mrg.uswest.com
Distribution: usa
Date: 06 Nov 92 21:59:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.070237.29121@RedBrick.COM> , jfr@RedBrick.COM writes:
>  That's very interesting.  How come the righttolife movement isn't
>  interested in the REAL mandate of the people (about 60% of whom
>  favor abortion on demand and 87% of whom favor first trimester abortion
>  in cases where the mother's life is at risk)?  Mandates are usually
>  claimed in whatever way they work best for the person claiming them.

Watch out! You are using popular polls again, but by those Clinton should
have won by 1114%. He did not. I just took a poll and found that over
75% of the people are against abortion on demand. Of course I tainted the
question by asking people "Are you in favor of a woman having an abortion
whenever she wants to?" The media usually asks the less biased question
"Do you believe a woman should have a right to do what she wants to
with her own body?" Then they pronounce that 60% of the people are in favor
of 'abortion on demand.'

        Steve Martin
        steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
 bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
 tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: (Mr B Natural)
Subject: Re: A sad day for America
Organization: Encore Computer Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:10:16 GMT

In article <Yey1XPS00UhBM3Y5Q=@andrew.cmu.edu>, Gary James Patalsky
<gp2f+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
> I say America will have double digit inflation, interest rates and
> unemployment by June.  If Clinton could not run the small state of
> Arkansas, what is he going to do to America?
> 
> BTW, Clinton is a socialist.  National health care is socialism.
> 
> You people just elected a failure to the presidency.
> What's wrong with you?

That's right...you're acting like a crazy person...what's wrong
with you...you're not voting, you're just annoying people...you're
probably on the pot and doing voodoo...straighten up, mister!

<kevin meany mode off>

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu (brian h. harper)
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE
Organization: Western Washington University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 08:50:41 GMT

marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.215259.2052@henson.cc.wwu.edu> n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu (brian h. harper) writes:
>>>and again, the electoral college is how we elect the president; popular vote
>>>is NOT. dont blame the press for this.
>>Right. Blame our congress for not amending the constitution to eliminate the
>>electoral college and go to a popular vote with a run-off between the top 2
>>if no one wins a majority. That way the voters will have elected a pres. by
>>a majority vote. Call your congressmen and demand that they support such an
>>amendment! Get involved!

>The top 2?  So why not come out and say that we sould only have 
>Republicans and Democrats and no one with a better (or differnent idea
>even) has a chance?  Good move.  If Clinton gets such passed, Bush
>is correct....that IS slick.

Top 2 IF NO ONE GETS A MAJORITY. You're assuming that the top 2 will always
be Republican or Democrat. Bad assumption. The main reason to switch is so
that there will be an end to "stragtegic voting". People who supported Perot
could have voted for him without fear of having their vote "wasted". Many
polls have shown that Perot would have gotten much more support had people
thought he could win. The present system prevents any one but a billionare
from running as an independent. Change it!!

-Brian Harper



>-- 
>Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
>MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
>my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
>   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:20:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Anita Hill to Head EEOC
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

In alt.rush-limbaugh, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
> =doug@ramona.com (Double Agent) writes:
> =>Sunday on _Meet the Press_, Vernon Jordan, head of Clinton's transition
> =>team, confirmed that Anita Hill is the front-runner to get the job of
> =>EEOC Commissioner. Note that the EEOC is the agency where Hill was working
> =>when she was sexually harassed by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas,
> =              ^^^---- allegedly sexually harassed
> =See the American Spectator article on Hill for all of the conflicting 
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> =testimony that Hill and her prime "witness" Susan Hoerchner produced during
> =their appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

		oh, this is juicy... let's start relying on a
		source that pays p.j. o'rourke for his political
		expertise... this is the same p.j. who began
		his investigative reporting career at THE
		NATIONAL LAMPOON and then, later of Rolling
		Stone... yeah this magazine has credentials...

		not a hit at p.j. (i love his work) its just
		a reminder that we shouldn't fall into the
		same quagmire the liberals are in by quoting
		the *esteemed* washington post...


peace to all and to all a good night,
pjm.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

In alt.rush-limbaugh, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

> An interesting idea came froM
> patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy):
>
> %		just thought i'd start a thread to see if
> %anyone here is for an INDEPENDENT SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
> %
> %		any suggestions?  contact your local
> %representative (especially those who are new) and tell
> %them to change!
> 
> What about that Socialist from Vermont(?)? That would definitely be an
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> interesting change!

	definititely interesting... but i was thinking more
	along the lines of a parrot... er... ah... perot
	someone who is overpowering yet gentle; someone
	who is sharp yet dull; someone who won't take *no*
	for an answer yet doesn't want yes-men(nee *person*)

	someone like recent baseball commisioner fay vincent...

> -- 
> Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
> 	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	i'll second that emotion...


pjm.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh