HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Let the Blame Games BEGIN!
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:28:10 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
> 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?

You're right, of course; the above references should be to Mike Dukakis,
but he and MonDull were as alike as two peas in a pod anyway. 

The point I was trying to make (clearly without success) was that Reagan's
margins of victory over Carter in 1980 and Mondale in 1984 were proof that
the majority of the people believed in Reagan's plans for the economy and
the nation in general. In 1988, when Reagan was prevented from running
again (and would have been nearly 75 anyway!) Bush campaigned as the heir
to Ronald reagan, with an explicit pledge to maintain Reagan's policies.
He violated that pledge, and quickly distanced himself from Reagan's
policies; look at the trend in the Federal register, for example. Now the
people have distanced themselves from BUSH, which sort of speaks for
itself. 

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


I thank you for your vote of confidence, and I'll try not to let you down
in the future. 

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9250 alt.politics.bush:13546
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Witch Hunt Time!!
Date: 8 Nov 92 17:21:26 GMT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington

In article <1992Nov5.215730.7269@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>Uh, get your facts straight - or did you perhaps forget that it was a 
>Democratic Congress who gave Oliver North immunity? And that is was Democratically-
>appointed Lawrence Walsh who screwed up in covering his own ass in shielding 
>his sources from that Congressionally-administered immunity?

>(John, no matter if you mean Democratic in the political (as in 
>democratic party) or in the type of political system (aka Not a Communist)
>sense.   The comment still works)

>Does your 'straight facts' negate any "wrongdoing" on the part of
>the parties involved?  No where in your 'straight facts' are you
>saying what ollie did was "right" you have said that the Congress
>gave ollie immunity, and thus he avoided some "worse fate" NOT that
>he avoided some "worse fate" becasue he was not guilty. 

>(in the system sense now)
>The Democratic system is not perfect, but it IS the best about, given
>the size of what it rules over.  And sometimes the system makes mistakes.
>It will let the guilty go free more often than crush the innocent.
>(or at least that's what  it's supposed to do.....)

Oh yes!! And lest we also not forget the Republican Federal Appeals
judge who dropped North's conviction!!

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9096 alt.politics.bush:13269 alt.politics.clinton:15971 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7977
From: andy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Andrew T Hodgkins)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:56:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

>LOVE the way you repubs try to turn a loss into a win
>
>try these on for size:
>
>BUSH loses in the popular vote, garnering less than 40%, an incredibly
>low number for an incumbent

It would have been, except there were three serious contenders this year 
instead of the usual two.

>BUSH LOSES even worse in the electoral vote, with every region in the country
>except the great plains either split or overwhelmingly for clinton.

Oh, please.  The electoral college is an all or nothing deal (except in Maine
and Nebraska, of course).  Even if Clinton just eked out a victory in a state
he gets all the electoral votes.  So of course Bush lost "overwhelmingly" in
the electoral college, that's hardly surprising.  Nor does it mean anything 
except Clinton won more states than Bush.

>BUSH LOST. repeat this until you accept it.

Bush lost, Bush lost, Bush lost.  Happy?  I accept it, and hope Clinton 
actually can deliver on some of the promises he's made...I'd rather see that
then see the country go down the tubes.  However, I can't see how anyone could
possibly interpret garnering a mere 44% of the vote a "mandate."  This means
that 56% of people who voted disagreed with Clinton enough to vote for someone
else, and that's more than a majority.

	--Andy
From: patm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Pat Murphy)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:18:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Clinton % vs. Bush %
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

In alt.rush-limbaugh, scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes:
>      Alyosha Bourgea asserts:
> >If you're looking at sheer numbers, the vote turnout this year was greater
> >than it's been in a long time, so we can assume that more people voted for
> >Clinton this year than voted for Bush four years ago.
>      Not necessarily. Look at these rough calculations:
>      Bush '88:     53% of vote x 50.4% turnout = 26.7% of population
>      Clinton '92:  44% of vote x 55.0% turnout = 24.2% of population
> It seems like Clinton supporters are so eager to annoint their man as the 
> chosen one that they're willing to overlook the facts. I disagree with those 
> people who say that Clinton has no mandate to govern--someone has to govern, 
> and if he doesn't have a mandate, then tell me who does--but it is inaccurate
> and unnecessary to claim that Clinton has more support in the electorate this 
> year than Bush had in 1988.
> 
>                                    Steve
> -- 
	it seems to me that i remember georgie ran against *one* major
	candidate in '88 while slick willie had to deal with *two*
	annoyances...  and if you consider the competition in '88
	i wouldn't be gloating over numbers like 26.7% of the pop.
	in fact, i'd hide my head in the sand...


just ponderin'
pjm.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gorney@picard.med.ge.com (Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983)
Subject: Re: Is God a Socialist?
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Magnetic Resonance
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 12:58:49 GMT

I have alwayt thought that those that would tinker with free enterprise would 
have no better luck than those who would alter the weather to make it more 
acceptable, with equally disaterous consequences. I doubt any economic system
is of any consequence to God. "You can't take it with you" would probably apply
to economic systems as well as to material things. Whatever dimension one's
particular God dwells in, I'm sure that economics are just as obsolete there as 
the rest of human folly. 

Nevertheless, free enterprise is itself much like the weather, and nature
itself. I'm sure you've heard of fractals, and the theory of chaos. One part of
this theory has been dubbed "antichaos". It is no wonder that systems based on
this theory mimic nature, and that the theory helps describe nature itself.
In general terms, it has been determined that in a chaotic system, when 3 or
less particles relate to each individual partice, the system spontaneously
becomes orderly. The system will organizer itself into patterns similar in
nature. If you remove, or change any type of particle, the system will 
collapse into chaos. However, if left to itself, the system will reorganize
and order will emerge. (Scientific American had an article on Antichaos a few
months ago, I don't remember exactly what issue it was however.) 

Perhaps we are finally learning how the "invisible hand" of free enterprise
actually works. Socialism, and present day economics, rely heavily on theories
developed during the industrial revolution. Some date further back to Newton.
However good these theories may have been for building machines and bridges,
they have failed to accurately describe complex systems such as the weather,
all of nature, and free enterprise.

Felix Gorney
From: snyder3338@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:Why alt.fan.rush-limbaugh????
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:48:26 -0600
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

This is also the only reason I read this newsgroup John, is to get your
summaries.  I just happened to be reading thru the posts also and this one
caught my eye.  Also this Jennifer Tinkle or whoever sure is a firecracker I
have enjoyed reading her posts also.  Perhaps we could make a new group for
people who actually like Limbaugh.  This group seems to be dominated by Liberal
scum.....Dittos to the faithful few!

Jeff Snyder

Snyder3338@iscsvax.uni.edu


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 20:43:52 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: The Environment
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <BxFMow.9rC@andy.bgsu.edu> jnomina@andy.bgsu.edu (A.P.K.) writes:
>Oh, oh! Can I handle this one?  Please?

Why sure.

>
>session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>> 
>>>>Bush broke his word and Clinton lied.
>>>That's right.  Bush broke ONE campaign promise.  So sue him.  That's
>>>probably an all-time LOW for a politician!
>> 
>> Huh? One lie? What planet have you been on for the last four years. I
>> can refer to several lies Bush has made in the past. He claimed
>> he wanted to be the Educational President. Based on his actions, he lied.
>> He claimed he wanted to be the Environmental President. Again, by his 
>> very own actions, he lied. He also lied about Iran-Contra and Iraq-gate.
>> 
>
>Bush claimed he WANTED to be the educational president.  By your own
>argument and statement, he didn't say he'd SUCCEED in being
>the educational president.  Therefore, purely by logic and your own
>argument presented, he didn't lie, it's quite probable that he really
>DID want to be the educational president.  Perhaps things (such as
>Congress, not a statement of fact, but of possibility) kept him too
>busy with other things to really succeed in this desire.  Same can
>be said for "Environmental President".  As an addition, I had a few
>problems last year trying to get a grant for school, because of a
>conflict between the D.V.A. (Dept. of Veteran's Affairs, formerly
>the V.A.) and the school.  Who finally helped me receive my grant
>when all else had failed?  A Republican Congressman...

Gee, this argument is awfully SLICK.  He didn't *promise*, he just
*wanted* to be...  Maybe he didn't have time to succeed, and I for
one am quite glad he didn't.  "Success" on the environmental front
from Bush probably would have been getting old-growth forest "redefined"
so that it's range would be cut in half, much like he did for wetlands.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I don't much care how a man prays -- there's plenty of
                 room in hell for all of us."  --- "Mad Jack" Duncan
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: November 3, the day Rush dies!
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 9 Nov 92 20:31:49 PST
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield
Summary: Sorry, just HAD to do this <insert Hillary's cackle here>

In article <1d8s2cINNs15@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach
) includes:
>In article <1992Nov3.210542.44369@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> model03@kuhub.cc.ukans.e
du (John Deke) includes:
>>In article <1992Nov3.113251.1@opie.bgsu.edu>, wd208cs@opie.bgsu.edu writes:
(includes?)
>>> with Clinton landsliding and all.

Jennifer, "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
mandate, v.  Democrats saying, "All right! It's ours again! Let's SCREW 'EM!!"
landslide, n.  Election by 40% of the vote, 5 points above 2nd place.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Straight from Rush!  What will happen to him?  He'll get taxed more.  Like all
of us.  Gee, the presidential election was SO important, what will he talk
about?  Maybe what the other 57%+ believe in?
From: stevem@solbourne.com (Stephen Matson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: INDEPENDENT HOUSE SPEAKER
Date: 11 Nov 1992 10:01:47 -0700
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
NNTP-Posting-Host: katmandu.solbourne.com

In article <6910@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>
>What about that Socialist from Vermont(?)? That would definitely be an
>interesting change!


 Correct me if I'm wrong but I think he is the only independent in the
house. 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9159 alt.politics.bush:13358 alt.politics.clinton:16095 talk.politics.misc:58500
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Foreign Policy Tutorial for Bill
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:17:11 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

I offer this in the interesting humor bits that will come from this
article. Please enjoy and smile! :)



From the AP Wire (copy editor: The Chronicle)

Russian President suggests early summit with Clinton

Wendy Sloane (AP)

MOSCOW --- President Boris Yeltsin talked with Bill Clinton by telephone
Thursday, invited the US-President elect to Moscow and suggested further
cuts in nuclear weapons...

"I think, Clinton, that my warm and good relationship with George Bush
will not prevent our relations from being even better," Yeltsin said
during the 20-minute conversation, part of which was shown on TV. ...

"The boldness in politics and firm rejection of old dogmas and
stereotypes that you stand for match well with the principles of our
Russian-American relations, " he told Clinton...

(Sorry, have to get to class now. More later.)

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	My humor button seems to blinking randomly. Read at your own risk.
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: gix@mdd.comm.mot.com (Brian Gix)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:25:16 GMT

In article <Bx9onK.KvB@acsu.buffalo.edu> mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt) writes:
>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>>	Our favorite radio boor has attempted to pull victory from
>>defeat by calling the election a triumph for conservatism on the
>>ground that Clinton had to move to the Right. And this is someone
>>whose candidate lost. I somehow expected him to jump into the
>>Sacramento River after this one, but his ingenuity has been as
>>entertaining as ever.
>
>	Yes, Bush lost, but because he had moved TO THE LEFT.  That moderate
>in conservative's clothing is a disgrace to the Republican Party.  The voters
>meted out punishment according.  Unfortunately, the cure is worse than the 
>disease.

Do tell.   And exactly who did all those right-wingers vote for since
they didn't vote for Bush?  Did they actually vote for Clinton because he
moved to the Right?  Did they vote for Perot, who also is more moderate than Bush?
Or did they (just to claim adherence to the lunitic-fringe) write in Rush Limbaugh?

While I don't think Clinton got a mandate in favor of his policies, I think
it's clear that he got a mandate against Bush's.

-- 
--Brian Gix                       Motorola
  gix@mdd.comm.mot.com            Mobile Data Division
  (206) 487-5894                  #include <disclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton wins in LANDSLIDE
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:39:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>LOVE the way you repubs try to turn a loss into a win
>try these on for size:
>BUSH loses in the popular vote, garnering less than 40%, an incredibly
>low number for an incumbent

Do you know how much an incumbent has received with respect to popular
vote if the race were a three-person race? Just wondering.

>BUSH LOSES even worse in the electoral vote, with every region in the country
>except the great plains either split or overwhelmingly for clinton.

Hey, wait a minute! He did win here in NC. Bush got MS, AL, NC, SC, FL,
and VA. I don't remember when we were a part of the Great Plains.

>BUSH LOST. repeat this until you accept it.
Faircloth beat Sen. Sanford. I've repeated it, and damn it, it feels
GREAT!

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	My humor button seems to blinking randomly. Read at your own risk.
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,alt.politics.bush
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Witch Hunt Time!!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:57:30 GMT

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.

Uh, get your facts straight - or did you perhaps forget that it was a 
Democratic Congress who gave Oliver North immunity? And that is was Democratically-
appointed Lawrence Walsh who screwed up in covering his own ass in shielding 
his sources from that Congressionally-administered immunity?

-- 
John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
                           | Support the coup!
                           |
jrs@netcom.com             | 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9577 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8491
From: kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Please READ!
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:24:55 GMT
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN

In article <BxLvEz.4z5@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> aaiken@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>	Do not follow-up to any article cross-posted to talk.bizarre
>
>	These are not serious articles, and they don't even merit
>	a response.  Still, the intent of the poster is not to
>	promote intelligent discussion, but rather to provoke
>	people.
>
>	This being USENet, the best method of dealing with these articles 
>	is simply to ignore them.  
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>Andrew Aiken

Yes, this crossposting stuff is getting out of hand.  Most of you should
realize that people that you want to read your articles are going to
subscribe to a number of groups, like both the limbaugh ones, the dan
quayle one, the bush ones, the clinton ones, etc....  There is little or
no reason to continue these long strings of meaningless crosspostings
unless you happen to have an underdeveloped ego.

Alex
From: adam@micromuse.co.uk (Adam Kerrison)
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
Subject: Colour Icons in XView 3.0
Date: 5 Nov 92 10:22:36 GMT
Reply-To: adam@micromuse.co.uk
Organization: MicroMuse Ltd, London, Uk

Hi there,

Sorry if this is an FAQ but I'm stuck. I want to use colour icons in an 
application that I am developing using DevGuide and OW3. I know that 
DevGuide can't handle colour icons but by using the SERVER_IMAGE_DEPTH
attribute you can make colour server images and thus icons.

My question is, how do I create a colour XView icon ? iconedit won't do it.
If all else fails I could create the files by hand, in which case what format
does the file use ?

I have experimented a bit and got a colour icon on a base frame, but I haven't
worked out what values to use to get the colours I want (Also after this
experiment, my copy of FrameMaker died suddenly and refused to restart ... is
there a connection here ???)

Any and All help would appreciated

Thanks in advance

Adam K.

---
===========================================================================
Adam Kerrison                  | Phone : +44 71 352 7774
Technical Support              | Fax   : +44 71 351 7834
MicroMuse Ltd                  | Personal E-mail: adam@micromuse.co.uk 
London SW10 0RN                | Support E-mail : support@micromuse.co.uk 
===========================================================================
From: buzz@bear.com (Buzz Moschetti)
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
Subject: Re: Is XView worth it?
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:41:59 GMT
Reply-To: buzz@bear.com (Buzz Moschetti)
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: viswanm@jasper.CS.ORST.EDU's message of 9 Nov 92 22:13:38 GMT

In article <1dmnqiINN2bo@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> viswanm@jasper.CS.ORST.EDU (Mahesh Viswanathan) writes:

>   I am just getting started on XView, and wanted to know:
>
>	   Is learning XView worth it?
>
IMHO, yes.  One of its main features is its simplicity.  For example,
button UI elements come in one size and have one callback mechanism.  Motif
buttons can be any size with any font and have three callbacks -- arm,
activate, and disarm.  This flexibility is terrific *but* 90% of the time
you don't need it.  Also, it can lead to inconsistencies between apps 
since the UI elements are so...configurable!

The other main attraction of Xview is that if you're a Sun shop, then
all your machines will find the Xview resources in /usr/openwin.   It makes
the development environment very predictable.
From: buzz@bear.com (Buzz Moschetti)
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview
Subject: Re: Just a line
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:04:18 GMT
Reply-To: buzz@bear.com (Buzz Moschetti)
Organization: Bear, Stearns & Co. - FAST
In-reply-to: filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM's message of 11 Nov 92 15:01:54 GMT

In article <2809@tymix.Tymnet.COM> filfeit@rael.Tymnet.COM (Fil Feit) writes:
   That's all I want to do:  Place a line in the middle of a frame, separating
   the top (some panel stuff) from the bottom (related but not closely) stuff.
   I know it can be done, but I can't figure out how.  A separate frame for
   the bottom portion didn't seem to do it.

XView doesn't have a "separator" UI element like Motif.  Oh well.  Here's
something that might work for you, although you'll end up with boxes
around your UI element clusters instead of just a line:
1.  Create the frame.
2.  Create an upper panel and a lower panel.
3.  Set the panel attribute WIN_BORDER to TRUE on one or both panels.
Newsgroups: alt.toolkits.xview