HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: slkg9733@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steven L. Kellmeyer)
Subject: Re: Liberal press... yeah, sure
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: na, usa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:38:15 GMT

tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>Kurt Krueger says;

>>Well, you're a neophyte to this business of keeping tabs, so most of us
>>seasoned veterans see why you have come to your conclusion.

>Gee, Mr. Krueger,  how do you know that I am a neophyte?   Fallacy #1,
>unsupoort assumption.      Falalcy #2,   arguementum ad hominum,  start
>by attacking the person...

>Which leads to fallacy #3, the rst of the message, which didn't contain
>any hard facts or statistics,  but  consisted of a lot of vague allegations
>of bias, without a single meaningful statistic to back it up...

OhMyGod, he is a scientist.  He uses the word "statistic" like most
Roman Catholics use the phrase "Virgin birth".   Faith, sir, has no 
place in a political discussion :)

Steve Kellmeyer
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org (Tom Hyatt)
Subject: Re: Lots of new millionairs
Organization: sdf Public Access UNIX, Dallas--unrestricted free shell access
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:25:50 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.233537.1564@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.230535.1450@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin) writes:
>
>I wrote [and deleting all of Mike's post and most of my followup]
>
>>the amount equals the prize.  It could take a number of years for the
>>full pay off.  Does such a situation make one a millionaire for statistical
>>counting purposes?
>
>I would hope a million dollar prize which took several years to pay off
>would not be counted as a million dollar income by the IRS for the year
>in which the prize was awarded.
>--

Under most state lotteries (I can't speak for all, as I haven't seen all the
individual laws....) the tax amount is taken directly off the top. As I have
stated before, usually runs between 25% and 40%.
 
>George Martin
>Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
>Internet: gmartin@something.aoc.nrao.edu
>"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)


-- 
==========================================================================       Tom Hyatt                          | My disclaimer:  I am not affiliated        USENET: thyat@sdf.lonestar.org     | with any USENET sites, organizations       RIME:  -->LUNATIC (Tom Hyatt)      | or personnel. The views given by me        Prodigy: KKDH77A (quit yer laffin!)| are mine, and nobody else's.  Nyah!       ==========================================================================
-
---
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Gag me with a spoon!
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:15:20 GMT
Distribution: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

Rush Limbaugh: perhaps the Greatest Living American. (August 12 show..)

Wooh hoooo!  Snort, snort!

It's such jactitation that keeps me listening to RL. Rush may be down from
320. But his ego certainly hasn't been on a diet.

  (..)
   ~~
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..
I saw God. He rides a motorcycle. He's coming back soon, and He's real pissed.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: My religion is great, yours is Bullshit
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:29:04 GMT

sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
>hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker) writes:
>>Then again who cares what this fat, rude, bitter right-wing insecure load
>>mouth has to say,  what do you think?

>Oh come on now!  I am sure that you have LEGITIMATE reasons to hate Rush!

>BTW, all of you should be proud of me!  I am actually giving this person the
>benefit of the doubt, even though his first impression leads me to believe that
>he can only resort to personal attacks.

    Very well done, Susan, but you let down your guard too soon. He might 
still have other aces up his sleeve besides the ones we've seen. A lot of 
people have gotten the idea (for whatever reason) that Rush calls people 
names, and I've noticed several participants in this group who had initial 
posts not unlike Bob's; doubtless just trying in their own way to emulate 
"The Great One". Bob may mellow with the passage of time.

    Personally I have some lingering doubts as to whether Bob's colorful 
description even refers to Rush. Rush might be somewhat overweight, but I 
wouldn't say that he's rude, bitter, insecure, or a "load mouth" (whatever 
that is).

>We in this group have only intellectual, thoughtful debate! ;) ;) ;)

    My ethernet connection must be garbled again... the only newsgroups I 
see in that NNTP header are a.f.r-l and a.r-l. Are you sure we're talking 
about the same group?

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: Improve your life through double speak, a Rush primer
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 17:04:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.230353.13888@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

	[Rush says: Individual income has gone down, but if you stand over
here and squint, we're all better off. I disagree, pointing out that we
have more families with both parents working, hardly an inprovement]

>So take this one step farther.  If families are already working 2-3 jobs
>to get some disposable income then how on Earth is raising taxes going
>to help them?  [...]

	This is good, Mike presumably has no argument, so he changes the 
subject, hoping to win *something* out of this discussion. I suppose that
he is hoping to win some future argument, and then use it to claim to have 
been right all along. It's logic like this that made Rush famous.





-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4513 alt.rush-limbaugh:3638
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Dixy Lee Ray & Lyndon LaRouche
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:19:13 GMT

	What I find most disturbing about _Trashing the Planet_ is the 
reliance on Lyndon LaRouche for some of the source material. Theres a 
certain irony in the idea that dittoheads have been (unknowingly) quoting
LaRouche, but it goes with the territory: like LaRouche, Rush doesn't seem
to picky about where information comes from, as long as it supports his
agenda.

	Anyway, for the people who asked for sources to back up that claim,
here they are: reference 18 in the text referes to two articles from
LaRouche magazines: 21st Century and EIR. Interestingly, the EIR reference
was a special report, referred to by Ray as "The Greenhouse Effect Hoax".
The correct title is "The Greenhouse Effect Hoax: A Federalist Plot".
Why she felt it necessary to abbreviate the title of the referenced work
is beyond me.

	There is, of course, much more source material in the book then 
these articles, but IMHO, anybody who whould put *any* stock in anything
that LaRouche printed is suspect. I don't know a legit scientist who would
cite a LaRouche paper, and the fact that she does it casts serious doubts
about her integrity.





-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Libertarians on Rush Limbaugh
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:50:23 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


I just heard today that the grand master let on a conservative
libertarian to ask, "What's so bad about Libertarianism?" 
The grand master responded that always talk about legalizing
drugs. The caller gave his justification for legalizing drugs
and then was not allowed to answer Rush's speal on how society
must set standards, how personal happiness is evil, and how 
society would fall apart if govt. legalized drugs. Maybe he 
could follow his philosophy of self-reliance and find that
its not because drugs are illegal that he doesn't do drugs
but it's because he has learned to respect his own body and
his own health. Legalization doesn't equal condonement.
Naturally, like pro-choicers, the caller was censored.
At times like this, a mildly entertaining show turns into
a fundamentalist, puritanical, maniacal spot to slam
self-reliance and individualism. 

-- Ed
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Will Raise YOUR Taxes - NOT!
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:41:01 GMT
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Aug12.164449.27090@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>In article 27597@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>If the only way to eliminate the debt is to raise taxes,  then we need to 
>>do it.   We can't afford to keep pouring tax dollars down the "debt interest
>>rathole".
>
>There's one other way to fix the deficit....INFLATION
>

Didn't work for Rome in the 300's and 400's
Didn't work for England in the early 1500's
Didn't work for Germany in 1930's
Didn't work for Argentina in 1980's

You honestly think it'll work for us in the 1990's?
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:56:19 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <37048@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>
>It might be a minority view but it was given prime timne coverage.
>Even the republican plank on abortion for instance is
>ultra-conservative. The whole conference seems to be leaning to the
>ultra right.

 That is incorrect. The conference went to right on a few social issues.
Some of these issues are currently being debated as to whether they actually 
represent loss of freedom. The economic issues are for small government.
 Pat Buchanan said what he thought was important. No one can control him.
He gives me the impression that he is responding to attacks initiated by
other people on his way of life. I have had this happen to me personnaly
to. Dont eat meat, Dont degrade women, Worship Militant Environmentalism,
etc, etc, etc. 

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A fine opportunity for DITTOHEAD flameage
Date: 12 Aug 92 00:47:26 GMT
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona

Dear Al,

In article <ART.92Aug11142425@world.std.com> art@world.std.com (Al Thompson) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.191115.22745@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>>just where the heck is Rush getting his evidence to say that Slick Willie
>>is a philanderer and a draft dodger?  Last time I checked, those two were
>>still highly debateable...

Sorry, that's not me...  maybe you need to check your sources a bit more
carefully?

>> Rush has stated many times on his program that the mere accusation is enough
>> to make it true.  He has also admitted that the bottom line of the Rush 
>> Lindbaugh program is the bottom line.   Remember,  he deals in ratings, 
>> not reality.  If facts get in the way of an entertaining accussation,
>> well,  bugger the facts.

To which Al responds...

>Well, I've listened to Rush a lot, he's on the background right now, and
>I've never heard any such words escape his lips.

Okay,  maybe _you've_ never heard him say such a thing...   But _I_ have.
Since you admit you haven't listened to all of his programs, that
means that you must have missed it.  Maybe you weren't listening at the 
right time.   Or, maybe like your misquotation above, you need to check 
your facts more closely?
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
Date: 20 Aug 92 19:18:23 GMT
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


In a previous article, fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) says:

>ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>
>>In a previous article, mhl@spirit.ece.cmu.edu (Mikko H. Lipasti) says:
>
>>>In article <_2gyjhm@rpi.edu> mcgead@operators.its.rpi.edu (Darren McGeary) writes:
>>>>>few words, on behalf of the 25 million unborn children destroyed since
>>>>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>                                        no such thing
>>>                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>Actually, Webster defines "child" as an unborn or recently born person.
>>>Look it up!
>>>
>>>Next time, avoid revealing your ignorance by checking your dictionary
>>>before spewing off at the mouth.
>>>
>
>>Funny.....My Webster's (copywrite 1990) defines "child" as follows:
>
>>Child, n, pl. children 1. A son or daughter. 2. a young person or baby.
>>3. a person thought of as the product of a given place, time, influence,
>>ect. 4. a descendant. 5. a person immature in judgment.
>
>>Going down through the next 6 entries (childbirth to childlike) I see
>>no reference to "unborn person".
>
>Assuming you're a man, I suppose that if at some time you had a pregnant
>wife, you would refer to the baby she was carrying as a fetus, throughout the
>entire 9 months of pregnancy, and would encourage her to say whenever the
>baby kicked, 'honey, the fetus just moved.'
>

In fact, I am a man.  And in fact, I did at one time have a wife who was
pregnant.  But I referred to the child she was carrying as "Baby", "child",
ect.  

That, though, is not the point. 

The point was that the original poster stated a serious untruth in their
rebuttal to another's post.  It was sloppy and without factual basis.

By the way, just so you know, I am not pro-abortion.  I just don't like
people creating references to foreword their political arguments.


>-ACF
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist // "Peter...PETER!!  I can see    *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller // your house from here!"          *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu // Jesus Christ, from the cross     *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.****************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Clinton jokes ok, quayle jokes not.
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Distribution: usa, na
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:44:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.202136.21083@nmsu.edu>, epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu (POWERS) writes:

|> 	If fair treatment is the issue, then their jokes are certainly unfair.   
|> When was the last time you heard a Clinton/Flowers joke in the news?  Or did  
|> you EVER hear one? 

	No, I've never heard a Clinton/Floweres joke on the news, but I've never 
heard a Quayle joke on the news, either. I have heard Qyayle jokes on talk shows,
and you can hear Clinton Jokes daily on the Rush Limbaugh show.

	Whats your point?

-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

                                        Alex Crain
                                        UMBC Academic Computing Services
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain)
Subject: Re: Improve your life through double speak, a Rush primer
Organization: Univ. of MD, Baltimore County
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 16:55:35 GMT

In article <Bsy0po.M42@acsu.buffalo.edu> mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J. Bernhardt) writes:

	[example of rush's figure twisting, deleted]

>	Can you cite figures?  Your argument is valid only if [...]

	Great! Rush twists statistics to suit his purposes, I point out
some fairly obvious problems with his logic, and now I'm being called
apon to prove my figures. Rush didn't offer any of the proof that you
want from me, but you'll follow him without question. It must be true,
because Rush said it!

	Now *thats* a dittohead, folks, I'll leave it to the reader 
to figure out why the term is so often prepended with "mindless".
-- 
Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

					Alex Crain
					UMBC Academic Computing Services
From: bnolte@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Bill Nolte)
Subject: FLAMEAGE!! 
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:11:23 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

Dear fellow netters,
	Now, Imay be new to this news stuff, but it seems to me
that all of this Rush flaming in a newsgroup called 

		alt.FAN.rush-limbaugh
is oddly misplaced.  It seems that that sort of thing should go
under alt.FLAME.rush-limbaugh.  As I said before, I am new to the 
news thing, and I may be missing the point of the alt.fan club
completely.  But if I'm not and the English language is being
interpreted correctly, please desist in this wasting of bandwidth
and network time.

Thank you very much.
Bill Nolte
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Date: 20 Aug 92 17:54:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Aug20.151609.23121@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.135039.2443@athena.cs.uga.edu>, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>
>|> Let us settle this once and for all.  I am no Clinton supporter, but did
>|> Hillary really liken marriage to slavery?
>
>	In law school, Hillary Clinton drafted some papers discussing
>the legal aspects of being a housewife, and likened it to the legal
>position of being a slave, because of the financial dependance
>involved. She also did a paper on the rights of children to sue their
>parents, and presumably concluded that under current law, it's a
>legitimate scenerio (I haven't read it, but given that Pat said she
>"supported" it ..).
>
>	All of these were theoretical arguments for law class.
>Claiming these were position papers is streching it, to say the least.

We must see these papers.  I don't know about you, but when I write a paper
for my doctoral program, I choose a topic I'm interested in and try to
defend it with rigor.  It's going to be difficult to convince me and the
public that she wrote these papers just for the sake of intellectual
excercise.  Humans are too personal and individualistic to be that
objective.  

Let's read the papers..

Ted Kalivoda
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4514 alt.rush-limbaugh:3639
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Balanced Budget Amendment
Distribution: usa, na
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 12 Aug 92 03:47:58 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Aug10.201723.28048@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
> The proposed balanced budget amendment will work about as well as
> Graham-Rudmann.   I.E., not at all.    There is no penalty clause.
> How about the following idea;
>

The proposed balanced budget amendment will not work - I agree.  The
reason is that future revenues - unpredictable values - are to be used
to calculate the budget amount to balance to.  Wanna bet those damnacrats
in congress won't cook the books to get their pork barrel projects and
spend spend spend policies enacted?

>
> Proposal for a Balanced budget amendment -
>
> 1)  The formula used to calculate the budget will not be altered from that used
> in 1992  [or whatever year... this prevents cooking the books]
>

1) I propose that the previous year's revenues, plus the previous
year's inflation rate be used as the budget target.  If revenues
increase beyond the budget (to produce a surplus), the surplus amount
is either applied to the debt or refunded to the taxpayers - NO NEW
SPENDING PROGRAMS.  New spending programs can only be allowed if old
ones of equal amounts are eliminated!  This means cutting defense AND
cutting entitlements and cutting everything else to make room under
the budget cap for new spending.  If a surplus exists, then no budget
increase at all is permitted.  Period.

> 2)  Any congressman, senator, president or vicepresident holding office
> during a year in which a non-balanced budget is approved, will be
> allowed to serve out their current term of office, but shall then be
> inelligable to hold US Federal elected or appointed ofice for 10 years
> following the completion of that term of office.
>

Why not just do term limits (the right thing) and get it over with?

>
>
>
> Wanna bet we'd have nothing but balanced budgets from then on????

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: EIB building vs Lake Wobegone
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:41:52 GMT

chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    Sometimes the truth isn't particularly interesting or amusing, but it 
>>would be if only a few facts were changed. I'd say that in that respect, 
>>what Rush does and what Garrison does aren't all that much different.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Of course, Garrison is a storyteller by trade.  Rush hosts a talk show.
>The characters of Garrison's stories are fictional small-town Minnesotans.
>The characters in Rush's "stories" are public figures, politicians, people 
>in the news.  Also, notably, Garrison is self-depracating in his lying.  
>Rush is self-aggrandizing.

>I think there is just a wee tiny difference here.

    I didn't say they were identical. What I was trying to convey was that 
*at least in one respect* Rush and Garrison are similar (that being that 
they both start with the truth and add embellishments as it suits them in 
order to make a better story). I apologize if you interpreted my previous 
statements to mean that I didn't acknowledge there is any difference 
between the two.

    My primary purpose in bringing up Garrison was to respond to an 
article in which someone was trying to discredit Rush on the grounds 
that the "EIB Building" is a fictional place. Since both Garrison and 
Rush are radio personalities who have made up fictional places, and 
since Garrison has gained his highest praise precisely for that reason, 
it seemed incongruous to me that Garrison's made-up world should gain 
him so much fame while Rush's made-up world was being argued to bring 
him only infamy.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4746 alt.rush-limbaugh:3840