HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 10 Sep 92 17:12:34 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

> It doesn't get any better than this.  I again propose the "e" test for
> any future posts you may have.  Before you post it, think about the fuss
> the Democrats and the media made of Quayle mispelling a word.  Think
> back to how that "non-issue" was brought up by almost every Democratic
> speaker at the convention, and then ask yourself if your post will make
> you look as foolish.

I suppose that if you don't think life should be at least partly fun, you
will never understand why Democrats find Quayle so irresistable. When
the political opponent makes a practice of going onto stages before large
audiences, throwing banana peels onto the floor and then slipping on them,
laughter becomes as hard to forestall as hunger or any other natural
impulse.

But there are really some serious conservative cultural principles at work
here. In the free market of behavior, in which every sovereign individual
exports to the society of other sovereign individuals his or her personality
product, some behaviors are purchased and utilized and others are remaindered
or returned to the manufacturer. Mr. Quayle's organic function in this
economic psycho-eco-system is to provide an extreme example of undesirable
behavior, causing types like him to mate less and reproduce less as they are
shunned by members of opposite behavioral types and sexes. Thus is the
undesirable type weeded out of the breeding population as the trickle-down of
his spermatozoa is choked off and socially aborted. Therefore, the implication
of Quayle is less Quayle, a boon to the future progress of nature and the
nation.

John
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:18:00 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <6222@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>, by jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke):
> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> 
>> It doesn't get any better than this.  I again propose the "e" test for
>> any future posts you may have.  Before you post it, think about the fuss
>> the Democrats and the media made of Quayle mispelling a word.  Think
>> back to how that "non-issue" was brought up by almost every Democratic
>> speaker at the convention, and then ask yourself if your post will make
>> you look as foolish.
> 

1. Now Dan Quayle brings up the spelling thing every time he gives a speech.
   I guess he's decided that the poor-speller constituency is worth
   pursuing.

2. Dan Quayles primary purpose for the Republican is to appeal to arch-
   conservatives in the party.  And apparently they love him; rush to
   his defense, blame the liberal media for his image problems, etc. etc.

   On a good day, Dan Quayle is a complete dunderhead.  On a bad day,
   someone should get him a CAT scan and look for brain lesions.  Why
   are conservatives so attracted to him.

3. By the way, being a glutton for punishment, I've been watching
   Quayle quite a bit on CSPAN.  Anyone else notice he's developed a
   real penchant for bizarre hand gestures?  He's beginning to look
   like Madonna in the 'Vogue' video.
--
Kent Williams -- williams@cs.uiowa.edu
"I'm tired of being nice to people who're full of shit" -- Me
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4537 rec.humor:28292
From: llama@pooh.cc.utexas.edu (sine nomine)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,rec.humor
Subject: Re: Clinton's Cabinet (humorous suggestions)
Date: 10 Sep 92 07:30:26 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5

the obvious choice for drug czar would be hunter s. thompson.

or maybe chair of the joint chiefs of staff...

--
sine nomine
debbie martinson
after all, you can't make toast in a blender.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4347 alt.activism.d:3058 alt.politics.clinton:4325
From: fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Bush reactive?
Date: 8 Sep 92 05:01:11 GMT
	<machman.715464078@milton> <Bu4p8B.D1K@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
	<1992Sep7.180024.632@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences

In article <1992Sep7.180024.632@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> pdl2r@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Peter D. Lauren) writes:

   -GB has tried to weaken industrial polution laws.  The mechanism by
   which he has attempted to do this is by allowing companies which
   pollute below the limit to sell the balence to other companies,
   thus allowing them to pollute above the limit.

This is a good idea (and thus of course not originally his), as long
as the limits are set at the current levels and cranked down at some
reasonable rate.  It is an orderly way to reduce emissions without
unduly penalizing those who happen to own older equipment.  More than
likely Bush would set the limits too high and fight to leave them
there.

Other than that a good article, though it is pointless to
argue with people who develop paranoid delusions from hearing
irresponsible ranting on their AM radio.
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Date: 8 Sep 92 19:12:51 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University


I wrote:
 >For some reason left out of this discussion so far:
 >What makes Quayle's draft record less agreeable to some people than Clinton's
 >is that it seems to be in conflict with his stated opinions about the war.
 
 >Quayle was/is (?) apparently supportive of the Vietnam War and its purposes.
 >He did not enlist to do the work of fighting that war.  This is not in any
 >way intended to demean the service of those in the National Guard.  (And why
 >is it I should have to even state this?)  But someone who genuinely supported
 >the war, who was young and able-bodied, might have wanted to make himself 
 >available to serve directly in it.

Then Chip Switzer wrote:
> While this is an almost plausible reason for differentiating the two,
> (and I notice that we have moved quickly onto a another reason besides
> the family influence thing) it does present a bit of a logical reach.
> Because one supports a war, or any government policy for that matter, 
> it doesn't obligate some kind of personal sacrifice for that cause.
> Are you really implying that anyone who supports a war should go down
> and enlist immediately?  Kind of a "put up or shut up" thing?  Should
> we then assume that if somebody were against the war that they must
> have been out marching in peace rallies whenever possible?  I haven't
> noticed any clips of Clinton doing that.

Then Eric Titmas wrote:
>It's entirely honorable to advovate dangerous policies but not want to
>participate.  Fires have to fought but I don't want to be a fireman, thugs
>need to be jailed but I don't want to be a cop, and wars are sometimes
>necessary but I don't want to enlist.

In a way, that makes perfect sense--if you accept that fighting the Vietnam War
and being a fireman are the same thing.  I'm guessing most Vets would say not.

While firemen and policemen both do dangerous and necessary work for us, they
do so of their own free will, and we pay them to do their jobs well until they
want to retire or do something else for a living.

When we have to DRAFT young men to be policemen and firemen for 2 or 3 year
stints, bury them by the tens of thousands, send them to do their work in a
strange land of hostile or indifferent people, and when our own country is
agonizingly divided over the morality and wisdom of fighting fires and catching
thugs... well, then I'd accept the analogy, I guess.
From: attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: TV show commercials
Date: 7 Sep 92 19:30:39 CDT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services


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

Wow, that's a seems like a pretty good time slot.  Here it's on at 12:30am
and I have yet to see any commercials for it.

BTW, thanks for the above info.  So far that's a grand total of 4 entries
for the FAQ.  Oh well, I'm sure I'll be swamped after the show actually
begins to air.  Here's the four:

ST  MARKET		CALL	TV/CABLE   AFF	 DAY	TIME
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS  Kansas City		KMBC    9          ABC   M-F    12:30-1:30a
NE  Omaha		KETV    7          ABC   M-F    12m-1a
TX  Austin		KBVO	42/5	   FOX	 M-F	12n-1p
NC  Durham		WRDC    28         NBC   M-F    12n-1p

>-- 
>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 life.
>I'm too busy for this .sig. 
 I'm too busy to remove the .sig.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracy Atteberry              |  The heart of the wise inclines to the
attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu  |  right, but the heart of the fool to the
D-D-D-Dittos!                |  left.  -Ecclesiastes 10:2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4433 alt.politics.clinton:4571 alt.news-media:1176
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 9 Sep 1992 18:24:55 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Sep9.174759.26916@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>, golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Sep9.153704.19033@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> >golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
> >
> >>In article <1992Sep9.120715.16501@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
> >>>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...
> >>>
> >
> >>And then Quayle screwed up in criticizing Clinton...saying that
> >>it was "cruise" missiles that could perform these feats...
> >
> >>Gerald
> >
> >The sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missile *can* do these things.  It
> >was one of our foremost "smart" weapons.  Do you remember the reporters
> >in Baghdad commenting on the Tomahawk coming down the street and 
> >"making a right at the intersection."?  These missiles can be accurate
> >to within a few feet.
> >
> 
> There is a difference between making a right at the intersection 
> and going down a chimney...do you have the video of a cruise missile
> dropping down a chimney shute...I think not.
> 
> >Does an anti-Quayle bias come through loud and clear on this one?  If
> >they had given him the benefit of the doubt, they could have researched
> >it a little more.  But since they are so quick to criticize him, they
> >look a little foolish themselves.
> >
> 
> If were talking about accuracy here...it involves much more 
> sophisticated guidance to be able for a Patriot to intercept a
> ballistic missile than for a cruise missile to follow a mapped
> out course.  If anyone was closer to the truth, Clinton was 
> rather than Quayle.
> 
> Gerald
> 
> 

Come on guys...this is just more irrelevant praddle. Let's return now to the
issues.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 23:51:32 GMT

chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:

>For some reason left out of this discussion so far:
>What makes Quayle's draft record less agreeable to some people than Clinton's
>is that it seems to be in conflict with his stated opinions about the war.

>Quayle was/is (?) apparently supportive of the Vietnam War and its purposes.
>He did not enlist to do the work of fighting that war.  This is not in any
>way intended to demean the service of those in the National Guard.  (And why
>is it I should have to even state this?)  But someone who genuinely supported
>the war, who was young and able-bodied, might have wanted to make himself 
>available to serve directly in it.

While this is an almost plausible reason for differentiating the two,
(and I notice that we have moved quickly onto a another reason besides
the family influence thing) it does present a bit of a logical reach.
Because one supports a war, or any government policy for that matter, 
it doesn't obligate some kind of personal sacrifice for that cause.
Are you really implying that anyone who supports a war should go down
and enlist immediately?  Kind of a "put up or shut up" thing?  Should
we then assume that if somebody were against the war that they must
have been out marching in peace rallies whenever possible?  I haven't
noticed any clips of Clinton doing that.

Of course, if Quayle had been drafted or in some other way already obligated
to go to Vietnam, and found a way to avoid that commitment, he would
have shaky moral grounds for defending the war.  

Still curious though, about why Quayle's alleged draft-dodging is a
political issue and Clinton's acknowledged drug use, infidelity, and
his own alleged draft-dodging are considered negative campaigning
by the Republicans.
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
From: yaros@sab57.larc.nasa.gov (Steve Yaros)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 17:06:58 GMT

Good lord, what else could Clinton have been thinking of than the Tomahawk when 
he said Patriot?  They're the only big surface-launched weapons used by us in the 
war (ship for Tomahawk, ground for Patriot, of course).  In this sense he screwed 
offense vs. defense.  To say that he really meant a laser-guided bomb or missile 
for purposes of denigrating Quayle's remark simply implies that Clinton also then
doesn't know the difference between a surface-launched and an air-launched weapon.
Even Dan Quayle didn't accuse him of being that dumb.

-- 
                           |                                                   
    Steve from Norfolk     | ...be aware that a walk through the river of most           
 yaros@sab57.nasa.larc.gov | people's souls would scarcely get your feet wet...
      804-864-3050         |                                  Deteriorata 1977
___________________________|____________________________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Subject: Re: Bush campaign issues ultimatum on debates
Organization: ILS
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:05:05 GMT

In article <debatesU2SF1215ae@clarinet.com>, clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)
writes:
> 
> 	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Bush-Quayle campaign, rejecting the use of a
> single moderator in presidential debates, told Bill Clinton that the
> president would only debate the Democratic nominee twice if a panel of
> journalists asks the questions.
> 	The campaign characterized the proposal as an ultimatum, saying in a
> letter released Monday, ``If we do not hear from you on the affirmative
> by (Friday) Sept. 18 we will assume that you do not want to debate.''
> 	Clinton has embraced the moderator format designed by a bipartisan
> commission on presidential debates and said he will be in East Lansing,
> Mich., on Sept. 22, designated by the commission as time and place of
> the first debate, whether or not Bush shows up.
> 	The hardball response, engineered by Bush's chief of staff, James
> Baker, and carried out by campaign chairman Robert Teeter, also calls
> for two debates, not three, as originally set by the commission. A
> single vice presidential debate would also be held.
> 	Bush prefers the format used in 1988, in which four journalists took
> turns at asking the candidates questions, who delivered short responses
> and even shorter rebuttals.
> 	A single moderator format, Bush officials fear, could enhance the
> performance of Clinton, who is a strong debater and able to call on
> facts and figures with relative ease.
> 	Bush, however, is more comfortable with a question-and-answer format
> that he has grown accustomed to at news conferences. The format allows a
> candidate to make his or her point without necessarily being challenged
> on details.
> 	``They have said they are eager and willing to debate. It's in their
> hands now,'' said Tony Mitchell, a Bush campaign spokesman.
> 	``We think that these terms and this format has been successful and
> works well,'' he added.
> 
> 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman)
Subject: Re: SPEECH: Dan Quayle on "Restoring Basic Values"
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 23:55:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.220421.23380@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>In article <5284@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>> 
>> Let me share with you a few statistics on the difference between black
>> poverty in particular in the 1960's and now.
>> 	- In 1967, 68% of black families were headed by married couples.
>> In 1991, only 48% of black families were headed by both a husband and
>> wife.
>> 	- In 1965, the illegitimacy rate among black families was 28%.
>> In 1989, 65% -- two-thirds -- of all black children were born to
>> never-married mothers.
>
>In the Summer 1968 there were Riots in Black areas all oiver the country; 
>Detriot, Chicago, New York, LA, etc.  
>
>In 1992 there was a Riot in L.A..  
>

Thanks for the historical reminder.  Actually, riots in black urban
neighborhoods were fairly common during the summer.  Most of
them were not as widespread as the recent L.A. riots, nor were
they covered so minutely by contemporary, nor are they given
much space in history books (but, then, what issues of race
relations are?)

>Clearly the level of social anarchy was greater in 1968 then in 1992.  SO
>how have the increase in alternative family situations lead to greater
>riots when an increase in these alternatives was accompined by a decrease
>in the number of riots?

If you add the social "anarchy" of 19th and 20th century labor riots,
officially sanctioned pogroms like Japanese internment, and the whole 
array of "Jim Crow" oppression, the conservative world-view
that a golden age of "family values" has been eroded by
30 years of scheming liberals who have caused many (most?) of
our current social problems simply vaporizes.

>There nis no doubt that children are being neglected in inner cities at a
>tragic rate, crime, unemployment, racism, drugs, (in LA the LAPD was a
>problem) and yes the present welfare system is to complicated and does not
>provide enough insentive.  
>
>But to assert that these problems would all get better if Blacks started to
>get married is alittle silly.  To assert that the decline in the nuclear
>family structure is a cause  has not been as of yet backed up.

But the great thing about this view is that it absolves the
executive branch from doing anything about the problems.
And it allows the electorate to believe that these 
problems are "their" problems, whoever "they" might be,
other than "not us".

I always find this babble from Our Boy to be especially
amusing in light of the fact that conservatives are
fond of bashing liberals for approaching social ills
with "quick fix" solutions.

-- 
| Eric Sieferman            |    sieferme@u.washington.edu          |
| U. of W., M.C.I.S.        |    (206) 685-3104                     |
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Carter bad, Bush good?
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:04:56 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep8.193430.20528@leela.cs.orst.edu> chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
->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?

 The original poster makes a good point. If my hard earned money is being
given to people who own their homes, own their cars, own their TV's and
have Air Conditioning, this will make me real angry. Especially when people
are starving to death in africa and other locations on this planet every
day !

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: At last, a conservative comic strip!
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:39:37 GMT
Reply-To: jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

mwbg9715@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Mark Wayne Blunier) writes:

> Ok you asked for it.  How come when Mr. Quail makes a mistake such as 
> mispelling a word, its all over the news for days, but when Bill 'I lied
> to the draft board' Clinton says Patriot missiles can go through cracks
> and down chimney, like we all saw on TV, the national news does not say it.  

In Clinton's case, it was a slip of the tongue. In Quayle's case, it's a
case of pitiful stupidity. Not an opinion, just the facts.

John
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: sgparker@eos.ncsu.edu (SCOTT GRAHAM PARKERSON)
Subject: Re: Why Can't Republicans or Programmers Spell?
Originator: sgparker@c00392-346dan.eos.ncsu.edu
Keywords: silly
Reply-To: sgparker@eos.ncsu.edu (SCOTT GRAHAM PARKERSON)
Organization: Definately NOT Kansas (NCSU, Raleigh, NC, USA)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:20:29 GMT


In article <6272@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
Xref: taco alt.rush-limbaugh:6491 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4197