HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: realism & the deficit
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:24:21 GMT

In article <92259.125256JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.033239.8769@nuscc.nus.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed
>Ipser) says:
>>
>>An increasing federal deficit is just the economy's way of saying that the
>>federal welfare state is living on borrowed time. Now I can see why senators
>>like Sam Nunn and James Danforth would consider that a grave concern. But
>>why that should rank in importance above other issues to Americans not
>>employed or subsized the uncle sam is totally unclear.
>>
>>The reality is that the deficit will continue to increase until the role of
>>the
>>federal government is reduced. For once, Bush is on the right track.
>>
>
>"...in eight years by direction of the most conservative administration
>in modern times, the federal government's spending will have exceeded
>its income by the staggering sum of $1.5 trillion.  The next President
>will inherit a publicly held federal debt nearly triple that accumulated
>by all of Ronald Reagan's thirty-nine predecessors.
>   "Historians will undoubtedly find these elephantine figures baffling.
>By then, the secret of the Reagan era's fabulous free lunch will be beyond
>dispute.  The records will show that within the span of a few short years
>the United States flung itself into massive hock with the rest of the
>world."  [Note:  the US debt is now a beyond staggering - incomprehensible -
>$4 trillion]
>   "In the final analysis, only one conclusion is possible.  The American
>economy and government have literally been taken hostage by the awesome
>stubbornness of the nation's fortieth President."
>                        David Stockman, 1st Budget Director under Reagan,
>                        who (with Jack Kemp) developed the administration
>                        budget direction (quote from 1987).
>
>Jeff Luck                                *Standard Disclaimer*
>CES Systems Office
>Penn State University           "Whatever you guys want, I'm for."
>JFL4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                     -Quayle to Ohio Farmers, 1988

About the deflicit thing, did anyone catch Tsongas and Rudman on
PBS talking about it last night? 


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: mann@eskimo.celestial.com (Tom Mann)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up!  Press Reports It!
Summary: Bill and Don both messed up
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 13:40:13 GMT

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...
> 

True! And Danny boy came back with the stunning rejoinder that Clinton was
really talking about the cruise missile. Both were talking about the 
so called 'smart bomb'

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom "Old" Mann KD9NL/7 Kirkland, Wash.     

I don't do drugs, don't do DOS and definitely do not do Windows.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 13:29:19 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: A journalist speaks... (apology)
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1933@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
> Thank you for explaining your position. I apologize for indirectly label-
>ing you. However you are guilty of it to. Quote from above.
>
>   What I seem to hear from "conservatives"
>
> Just ask us and we will tell you exactly what our positions are. Dont
>expect the press or anyone else to explain conservative views to you.

My turn for an apology.  I should have started a new thread, rather than
a followup to this thread.  While generally related to this topic, my
comments were not intended towards anyone in particular, especially those
who have been posting to this thread (note that I didn't quote anyone).

By posting a followup, I implied that I was attacking the people in this
thread, which was *not* my intent.  Again, I sincerely apologize.

Of course I'm guilty of bias.  I'll never deny it.  That was part of the
point of my post - that you can't remove bias from the news, because people
don't want it removed.  To do so would be to do nothing but present cold,
unemotional facts, which, while to a certain extent, is possible, does not
sell newspapers or commercial time.  Even the scientific journals have their
own brand of bias, although it is far more subtle.  

I don't expect *anyone* to tell me what conservative views are, because it's
pointless.  Every conservative has a different view of what a conservative
is, as does every liberal of what a liberal is.  That's why I hate the
labels - they polarize and do not promote understanding.  There are good
and bad points to both extremes.  To label me (as some most certainly
would) a "liberal" because I attach a high priority to envrionmental issues
is a mistake, because on many other issues such as economics, I more closely
align myself with "conservative" views.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
                   ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4479 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5210
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:16:23 GMT

In <1992Sep11.131800.26507@news.uiowa.edu> williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams) writes:


>   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.

If he's such an idiot, then why do you waste your breath condemning
the man? Get on with life and do something useful.

>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.

Ditto. Give it a rest with the Quayle-bashing. No man or woman
deserves the hell he's gone through for the past four years. If he's
not your favorite person, fine, but this nit-picking (look at his
hand-gestures now...geez, what a dweeb) is ridiculous.

Michael


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Why Can't Republicans or Programmers Spell?
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:28:26 GMT

sieferme@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Sieferman) writes:

>In article <6272@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>>
>>What does this have to do with Republicans? Simple: Republicans make lousy
>>programmers. How do you like them apples?
>>

>Here in Washington, RepubliCons grow wonderful apples!

Ugh! Perhaps some down-home-type Republicans still grow wonderful apples, but
those RepubliCons and their megafarms of waxy-on-the-outside, bland-as-wood-
pulp on the inside, so-called "apples" can keep their goddamn 99 cents a pound
as far as I'm concerned! For all you non-Washingtonians subjected to these
crimes against the spirit of Johnny Appleseed, please accept my humblest
apologies.
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberal Bias Example
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:47:13 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep9.171529.25425@burrhus.harvard.edu> dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu (Steve Voss) writes:
->But two points:
->Steve got his evidence only from what the camera showed him.  He was never
->at these events, from what I could tell.  So while he suspects the
->reporteRs were biased, we KNOW he was -- biased by what the cameraperson
->chose to show him.  Maybe he or she was biased conservative and tried to
->beef up the size of the Republican rally?  Sounds silly, and it is

note - had to cut down alternate newsgroup postings. Cant post to those groups.
 Actually, the camera at the republican event was aimed using a large angle
view showing the entire crowd. The camera at the democratic event never show-
ed the entire crowd. I used the following method to determine the crowd was 
small at the democratic event. The depth of people. 6 at best. The loudness
of the applause or cheers. No wide angle shot was given.

 Heres another great bias example from a different local station. KTLA channel
5 recently had Dan Quayle pay a visit to their morning show. This occurred
yesterday and I watched the news at 10pm coverage of the event. Channel 5 has
tended to be moderate. The reporter covering this story wasnt. He reported
the following. Dan Quayle in response to a callers worries about Republican
Homophobia replied that the republicans are not against gays, just against
granting special rights to gays and promoting the gay life style to very 
young people. In a response to a callers concerns about the Republican partys
stance of downgrading single motherhood, Dan stated that he is not against
single motherhood. He only wants to show the importance of having two parents
including a father. He also stated that fathers should not forget their child-
ren.
 I have watched Dans unedited speeches on CSPAN many times. This is the exact
message he gives in he speeches. So, how did the reporter summarize the story.
He stated that it appeared the republicans must be moving away from the extreme
right positions they have been touting since their convention. He then stated
that this was propbably being done in California to gain ground in this more
moderate state.
 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.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4823 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3735
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 15 Sep 92 02:25:24 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep14.180013.8060@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:
>Yes,  incredibly arrogant.  But he forgot to sign off as Dr.

 In Rush's new book, he claims that what he is trying to point out with the
"half my brain tied behind my back" remark, is that even though he knows he
is going to "win that debate", he wont use the other half of his brain brow-
beating his opponent. Perhaps we all can learn something from that.
 ie-that explains the rush relaxer.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Washington Window
Date: 13 Sep 92 20:05:49 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus

In article <1992Sep12.172058.3456@newsgate.sps.mot.com> titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas) writes:

>Income taxes under Reagan went down for ALL Americans.

	If you say so. *My* taxes when up under Reagan, I needed more income
to get a tax cut.




-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens,
 nor should they be considered patriots.  This is one nation under God"
                                     - George Herbert Walker Bush, Feb 1989 
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4836 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3744
Date: Monday, 14 Sep 1992 12:30:25 EST
From: <RVESTERM@vma.cc.nd.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
 <1992Sep12.015618.9709@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>

i try not to point out spelling mistakes.  however, i just can't control
myself when someone who IS pointing out spelling mistakes makes one himself.

"merit" has one "r".  to make "merit" plural, we add an "s"; we do not also
double the "r"'s.
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A letter to Rush: what is a liberal
Summary: The difference between liberals and conservatives
Date: 15 Sep 92 20:44:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University

stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>[This was send July 30th, but I think it might still be of interest.  I
>would be interested in comments, especially from liberals.]

    Ok. You *did* ask.

>On Wednesday's show I heard you give your definition of liberal and
>conservative.  I think you are spot-on, but I want to share an insight I
>have on the subject.  It seems to me that one of (if not the) fundamental
>differences between liberals and conservatives is the degree to which they
>feel in control of their lives.  Conservatives tend to feel that they are
>in control of their destiny, perhaps more than they actually are.  Liberals
>tend to think that life is something that happens to a person over which
>they have little control.

    Sorry, but I think that Rush's explanation of liberals as people who 
don't believe in moral absolutes is more accurate. Your insight applies 
very well to fiscal liberals, but not necessarily to social liberals.

>If you think about it, my theory goes a long way to explain the differences
>between liberals and conservatives.  For example, if you are the master of
>your destiny, in control of your life, then it is wrong to redistribute
>wealth, because those who have it, earned it, and those who don't are
>themselves to blame for their poverty.

    Hey, you know, I hadn't thought about it but that's a great way of 
measuring the sin of sloth, huh? Nobody becomes poor who didn't deserve 
it, and nobody becomes rich who didn't earn it. If poverty is a mark of 
sin then there must be all kinds of rich people in heaven, huh?

>  Conversely, if people don't have
>any control over their lives, then the wealthy are only that way through
>happenstance, have no legitimate claim to it, and it is only just that the
>government should redistribute this wealth.

    No, the thing that makes the redistribution justifiable is that some 
people have accumulated far more than they need and others don't have 
enough. It has nothing to do with who has legitimate claims to what. When 
someone is starving they need food. If someone has more food than they need 
then they have enough to share. Of course, it's to be hoped that the ones 
with more than they need will voluntarily share, but why leave it to chance?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4631 rec.humor:28430 talk.bizarre:29791 talk.politics.misc:44968
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,rec.humor,talk.bizarre,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Campaign TV Ad
Date: 12 Sep 92 02:36:56 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

wrt the House banking scandal:

If you or I, as private citizens, receive an interest free loan, the
IRS says we owe tax on the interest we *should* have paid at market rates.
If you don't, the ever-compassionate IRS comes after you for tax evasion.

Did all the Congress-critters who had "floats" averaging thousands declare
the income?  I doubt it.

And today's paper has a big article on the House post office.  Seems the
investigators are getting close to paydirt, and seems Rostenkowski is
sitting in the middle of the pile.  Getting interestinger and interestinger...

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 04:32:25 GMT

kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:

>Y'know, I hold no particular love for George Bush, and Dan Qauyle doesn't
>impress me much either.

That's nice....

>But however bad they are, compared to their
>competition, they look positively brilliant.

Now this is going to be hard for you to prove.

>Clinton has structured his
>ENTIRE LIFE toward being President; it's the only thing in the WORLD that
>he really belives in.

George "pro-choice in the '80 primaries, pro-life as VP" Bush, George "that's
voodoo economics in the '80 primaries, that's my most closely-held belief as
VP" Bush, you think, shows less evidence of being an ambitious phony?

>Al Gore is an eco-freak who spouts bad science, and
>has, according to the New Republic magazine (a strongly liberal,
>pro-Clinton rag!) stated that the media should censor scientist who
>disagree with his apocalyptic predictions of catastrophe, because by the
>time we learn the truth, it would be too late to do anything about it. 

Oh yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what Al said. You think Gore's understanding
of environmental issues is less informed by sound science than Dan Quayle's,
whose greatest accomplishment in the Senate prior to his VP appointment was
a successful filibuster of a bill that would have required employers to notify
employees that were coming into contact with known-to-be-toxic chemicals in
the workplace?

>And as scary as "President Quayle" sounds (and I'll agree, I'm not
>particularly comfortable with that), Mike Deignan has a point; "Justice
>Cuomo" is a LOT scarier. And while we could get rid of Quayle at the next
>election, we'd be stuck with Cuomo for LIFE.

You have got to be kidding me. What is Cuomo likely to do as Supreme Court
Justice that could possibly scare you so much? Even if he actually wanted
to be a Justice and got a spot, you think he'd be worse than Clarence "forced
confessions are O.K. by me" Thomas? I'd take Cuomo over *any* of Bush or
Reagan's nominees, whose moderate stance on abortion I think has diverted
attention away from justwhat scary right wingers most of them are.

Not to mention the rank silliness of the idea that even the worst Supreme
Court Justice in the history of the nation could possibly ever even have
the potential to wreak as much havoc as Quayle in the Presidency.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bcampbell@ll.mit.edu (Betty Campbell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush Limbaugh in New England?
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:07:49 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

Does anyone know where to find Rush Limbaugh's programs (radio and TV)
in New England - specifically New Hampshire and Massachusetts??

Thanks. 
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Campbell                             (bcampbell@ll.mit.edu)
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Lexington, MA  
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<1992Sep9.135155.19585@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
	<1992Sep9.153704.19033@afit.af.mil>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:44:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.153704.19033@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:

   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.

Interesting. I wonder if they had a mirror reflecting the guiding laser at
90 degrees or what?

Cruise missiles are indeed smart, and they don't need laser beams to guide
them. They actually monitor the terrain and compare it to a map, stored in
internal ROM (read-only memory) for guidance, in a very autonomous
fashion. Other navigation systems are also used, of course. Very 
effective.

(I seem to recall that it was all explained in some detail on an 
issue of that pinko quasi-scientific PBS program, Nova.)

   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.

Does another Whinin' Right non-issue come through loud and clear here or
what? Poor, poor Danny Quayle. He can't even gloat correctly, huh? Spare me.

Quayle was the one so quick to try to capitalize on this little slip of
Clinton's tongue. And a brilliant response it was. And such a relevant
issue, eh?

You know, the difference between criticizing our illustrious VP and
shooting fish in a barrel seems to be that the fish do swim to and fro a
little.

    (..)
     ~~
L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Hey Mister! Your organ's stopped playing, and your monkey's on fire!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh