HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Media Bias?????
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:33:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

The mysterious dp writes:

>It would appear that the media are so accustomed to ignoring the truth until
>they are confronted with it by someone who has a 70% approval rating in the
>polls.  I gues that we really shouldn't be suprised when we remember that these
>are the same TV networks that consider that 20-30 million people watching
>"Murphey Brown" represent a majority of Americans.  Never mind that there are
>over 200 million of us - over six times as many - that do not watch the show.
>Never mind that 60-70% (depending on which poll you looked at) of Americans
>SUPPORTED Dan Quayle's views on the root cause of the problems in the inner
>cities  -  including those that live there.  Given a not so popular mouthpiece,
>they painted a picture that the VP is some kind of rightwing conservative, out
>of touch with mainstream America.

There is a *big* difference between supporting his views on the *cause* of
problem and supporting his views on the *solution* to the problem. 

It's similar to his statements about too much litigation.  I agree, there
is too much litigation.  What is his solution?  I don't know, and he didn't
tell me in his speech last night.

BTW, we have positive proof here in St. Louis of the success that Jack
Kemp's plan for tenant run public housing has had.  I hope that whoever
wins the White House will listen to him, because he has good ideas.
Fostering self-reliance is a *good* thing, which many Democrats need to
learn.

Did Marilyn Quayle actually say "it's too bad Major Dad can't meet up
with Murphy Brown?"  Major Dad is MARRIED!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Conservatives on Personal Freedoms 
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:46:32 GMT

KKRUEGER@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Kurt R. Krueger) writes:
>cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu writes: 
>> William F. Buckley, Jr. is the only conservative that advocates
>> drug legalization but also is anti-choice. I think you may
>> classify him as a conservative with a strain of libertarianism.
>> Most conservatives are pro-choice though.

    That's news to me.

>The pro-choice position ignores the rights of the unborn (who miraculously
>seem to get their rights once their heads hit the light of day).

    True, but we're not the first group to notice miraculous aspects to
the process of birth.

>Drug legalization simply says "We can't win it, so why fight?"  Never 
>mind the fact that a low price of drugs would encourage greater 
>consumption.

     Not necessarily. I would say that drug legalization *with restrictions*
says "We weren't having much luck with the head-on approach, so let's try 
a different tack." Giving up altogether would mean no restrictions at all 
and I don't think anyone seriously expects that to happen. As to lower 
prices encouraging greater consumption, that may be true, however are 
current high drug prices ever cited as "encouraging" a high crime rate in 
order to get money to buy drugs?

    If it's a choice of whether my aunt Janet gets mugged or some dreg of
the underworld speeds up the slow poison process he's killing himself with, 
I think I'd prefer to let the dreg have the dope. Of course the choice is
never that simple, but if I have to take someone's interests to heart 
then I think I would prefer to take up the interests of people harmed 
because of our current stance towards drugs rather than the interests of 
people who are insanely killing themselves with those drugs. I have this 
weird mental condition which makes me balk at the idea of impounding 
someone's property and incarcerating their person on the grounds that 
it's "for their own good".

>Conservatives, by and large, believe that laws and values come from 
>absolute standards of morality as laid down by God.  Liberals believe 
>laws come from the shifting sands of the political process.

    Given the extent to which the laws of men have shifted over the years,
I think I can understand how anyone might draw that conclusion. Perhaps 
what you meant to say was that liberals feel that the conception of right 
and wrong on which our laws are based come from the shifting sands of the 
political process? Or simply that the "absolute standards laid down by God"
aren't absolute? As a liberal, I would agree with any of those statements.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Date: 13 Aug 92 23:24:12 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 77597@ut-emx.uucp, zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.221933.3922@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>>open mind.  Calling yourself openminded is what I object to.  Conservatism
>>by nature is neanderthal and close-minded, just look up the definition in the
>>dictionary.
>I'd sure love to see the dictionary with that definition.  Traditionally,
>"conservative" had some connection with its root, "conserve".  Conservatives
>wanted to conserve the old ways.  Of course, today the term means, in the
>US political arena, one who distrusts government.  I fail to see the connection
>to a branch of the human family tree which died out long ago.

I agree about the neanderthal part but I disagree with you about the distrust
in government.  Conservatives have always looked towards the government for
a more and bigger presence when it comes to religious issues, public funding
of parochial schools (i.e. government vouchers, school choice, etc.), and
restricting the private medical decisions of women.  Conservatives have always
strived to create as big a defense industry as possible, all funded by taxing
its citizens.  Conservatives have always been for having more police power
administrated by the government.

---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Is Rush just a teenie bit inconsistent ???
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:04:42 GMT
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

Gosh,  Rush complained that those gosh darned liberals, feminazis, and
animal rights wackos just can't take a joke.   

Then, about 5 minutes later, he complained how unfair it was that the
liberal press makes jokes about Dan Quayle (aka Mr. Potatoe Heade).

Stop sitting on half of your brain, Rush, and then make up your whole mind... 
is it okay to make jokes, or not?    Or is it only okay to make jokes
about liberals, and not about conservative sacrede cowes?

(from the Limbaugh Dictionary - Liberal - n - anybody who is moderate, 
centrist, left, or occasionally liberal with whom Rush disagrees)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Media Bias?????
Date: 22 Aug 92 13:42:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <mykes.0d13@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.163318.16197@dbsun.uucp> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>>
>> There is a *big* difference between supporting his views on the *cause* of
>> problem and supporting his views on the *solution* to the problem.
>>
>> It's similar to his statements about too much litigation.  I agree, there
>> is too much litigation.  What is his solution?  I don't know, and he didn't
>> tell me in his speech last night.
>>
>
>His proposed solution is judicial reform.
>
Uh.. excuse me, but you have just said absolutely nothing, which 
I think was the point (hulsey) was making about Dan Quayle.

So what is this "judicial reform" plan? What does "taking on the trial
lawyers" mean? Well, what other kinds of lawyers are there, that are apparently
going to be left out in this new war on lawyers? Who is it that "trial lawyers"
represent?

Why ... private citizens, that's who! Apparently we private citizens have been
asserting our rights in court too much for the liking of Messrs. Bush and
Quayle, horribly interfering with the rights of corporations to screw us over
and doctors to accidentally cripple us in surgery at our expense.

You know, I have no love for lawyers, but did anyone notice how "trial lawyers"
and "Hollywood and the media elite" were Bush and Quayle's scapegoats? They
even suggested that the trial lawyers controlled Bill Clinton, which I found
very reminiscent of Red scare tactics.

Funny, I've never known trial lawyers, Hollywood or the media moguls to be
anything other than ruthless money grubbers. Could they be pinkos after all?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 00:18:28 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <Bss8p3.MDq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.172054.20342@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>>
>>>	Are you opposed to doctor's counseling, a 24-hour period
>>>"cooling-off period", etc.?  These will give the woman more time to consider
>>>her choices, and isn't that what "pro-choice" is all about -- having an
>>>informed choice?  Or are you one of those who don't really want a choice
>>>other than abortion?
>>
>>I find this sentiment remarkably condescending and intrusive.  Do you 
>>really think that people who go in for abortions haven't given the matter
>>serious thought already?
>
>Well I can't speak for the original poster but yes I am convinced that
>at least some people have abortions without thinking through the
>potential consequences.  Many especially have no idea of the level of
>fetal development (you might note that many people want us to spend more
>money on prenatal care and an important part of this is education about
>fetal development.  Why spend the money if we all know this already?).
>You know little of the psychology of decision making if you do not think
>that we often make decisions based on the opinions of others.  They are
>particularly influential in crisis situations.  All the Pennsylvania law
>is designed to do is make sure that each prospective abortion client
>gets balanced information which scientists (and lay people) know leads
>to better decisions.  Information and a short time to consider it seems
>quite reasonable given the enormity of the decision.  Clinton has just
>said that we must find a way to reduce abortions.  This seems like a
>reasonably nonintrusive way to begin that process.
>
>Tim
>

You make my point.  Read what you posted - it roughly translates to:
"We know what's best for you.  You can't be trusted to make an informed
decision yourself.  Therefore, by LAW, you must jump through these n
hoops before your decision is deemed acceptable to us."  Isn't this
the precise thing that Rush Limbaugh harps upon the democrats for?
This sort of thing does not promote people thinking for themselves and
taking responsibility for their actions.  It is social engineering, pure
and simple, a thinly disguised attempt by the anti-choice faction to 
encroach on people's personal decisions.  And it stinks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Verbosity leads to unclear, inarticulate things."
                   ---J. Danforth Quayle
                "Western Civilization is addictive and dysfunctional."
                   --- Albert Gore
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Bush's broken promises (was Re: Clinton's broken promise)
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 13:46:41 GMT


In a previous article, ATERO@ASUACAD.BITNET () says:

>Has anyone heard a satisfactory explanation from Clinton as to why he went back
>on his promise not to run for president if he was elected governor?
>
>I heard this on a local talk show while the host was interviewing a Clinton
>campaign worker.  His job was to cover the convention and point out lies told
>by the republicans. A caller asked him about it and he conceded it was true
>but changed the subject when the caller sought an explanation.
>
>Eric Owens
>

Gee, imagine that.  Clinton broke his promice about NOT running...

It's not like Bush has never broken any promices

"Read my lips: No new taxes"
"3,000,000 new jobs in the next 4 years"

And how many others?

And of course, he hasn't broken the express promices inherant with being
given the job, like

Taking care of America and Americans first...
Working in the best interest of his constituients...(oh, I forgot...he did..
the rich have gotten richer...)

But, gee, Clinton's a dishonest bastard...
-- 
*...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,alt.politics.clinton
From: dp
Subject: Clinton's Tax Increases - A Little Truth
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:12:34 GMT

In article <16sl1mINNdmv@agate.berkeley.edu>, lazarus@ocf.berkeley.edu (Andrew J. Lazarus) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug18.152407.18643@csl.sri.com> boucher@roche.csl.sri.com (Peter K. Boucher) writes:
|> >"Clinton is a big spender"
|> >   Arkansas ranks 50th in per-capita spending.
|> 
|> >"Clinton is a big taxer"
|> >   Arkansas ranks 49th in total per-capita state taxes (all types,
|> >   not just income taxes).  Arkansas ranks 47th in taxes per 
|> >   dollar-of-income-earned-by-residents.
|> 

I can here Slick Willie now: 'Look at the facts: in my country since I have
been president we have had a few tax increases, but we still have the lowest
tax rate of any country in the world with socialized medicine.' (Oops, I should
have used the PC "Universal Health plan.")

I'm a little surprised that Slick Willie hasn't pointed out that his fiscal
plan will take us back to a world like the one that he grew up in back in
Hope, Arkansas.  You know, the days when "we could leave the doors and windows
unlocked."  After all, his tax plan will leave us with the same things that
he supposedly grewup with in Hope  -  NOTHING !  (There's no need to protect
what you don't have.)

Now, back to reality.  This morning Clinton was asked about the Republican
references that Arkansas had been rated 50th in environmental policy by
an environmental watchdog group.  Clinton responded with the pat Democrat reply
'As you can see, they're desperate" (a "defense" which is wearing thin even
with my "yellow dog Democrat" friends from Arkansas, I might add).  He then
said that the facts are that under his leadership the state of Arkansas has more
environmental funds available.  He did not mention what he had spent any of
these funds, if any, for.  Perhaps Bush should freeze all spending by the EPA,
Interior Department, and USDA (Forest Service) so that he could make the same 
claim at the national level - obviously not sound policy, but a prime way to
backup Slick Willie style double speak.


*** The opinions are my own and are not necessarily those of my employer. ***
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: chrisda@atlantis.CS.ORST.EDU (David Christensen)
Subject: Re: EIB building vs Lake Wobegone
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 04:10:46 GMT

In article <nate.479@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

[Descriptions of Garrison Keillor's program deleted.]
>
>    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.

David Christensen

>--
>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Libertarians on Rush Limbaugh
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:37:13 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


On August 11, a conservative libertarian called and asked Rush
about why he found libertarianism so despicable? Rush replied
that libertarians want to legalize drugs. The caller gave his
justification for his position of legalizing drugs. Then the
grand master put on a commercial and then returned to give his
speal about how govt. needs to set standards and how if we 
legalized drugs we could cause the downfall of society. 
Naturally, the rest of the day he never let anyone call to
reply to his arguments. Censorship? In debate, you allow 
both sides to give each other sides. Maybe, if he'd shut up
he'd learn what an ass he's making of himself. I think 
we should criminalizing people making asses out of themselves.
In the present situation, society is falling apart.

-- Ed
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberatarians on Limbaugh.
Date: 13 Aug 92 04:38:20 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 123020DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU, DART@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (415) writes:
>It's amazing, the two greatest problem drugs in this country are legal,
>alcohol and tobacco.  They're glorified in all sorts of media,
>bragged about laughingly by people in 'responsible' positions; "..oh sure,
>but who doesn't now and then eh?  Heh-Heh!".  Yet motor mouth contends,
>without allowing legitimate counter arguements, that if we legalize drugs
>we'll "...cause moral standards in this country to drop.".   Yes, Ed is
>right on here.  Society is falling apart; the emporor isn't wearing any
>clothes!

I have a question regarding drug legalization.  Isn't this a conservative
plank?  I mean, don't most (at least some) conservatives advocate this.
I've been accused of being a liberal (consider myself centrist) but then
they balk when I tell them that I'm for the unconditional legalization
of drugs, but with regulation, similar to alcohol and tobacco.

I'm almost positive that liberals in general do not consider drug
legalization part of their turf, and I know the libertarians do.

So, where the conservative right-wingers stand on this one?

---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
From: eric@wdl35.wdl.loral.com (Eric Kuhnen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech at convention
Keywords: Buchanan Rush Limbaugh
Date: 20 Aug 92 01:44:32 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,na
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>(Speech delivered by Patrick Buchanan at the Republican convention
>in Houston on Monday, August 17, 1992.)
>> Mr. Clinton, however, has a different agenda.  
>> At its top is unrestricted abortion on demand.
>Which, of course, is a lie.  (Not that it is suprising 
>that Buchanan would resort to lying.)

And just what do you think is the outcome of a liberal, "pro-choice" endorse-
ment from a would-be President Clinton?  You have your head in the sand if
you think that Buchannan hasn't pegged this one perfectly!

Eric
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments and criticism are welcome.  Flames to /dev/null.  "Get a life"
drivel to /dev/mirror.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4703 alt.politics.clinton:2390
From: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (William M. Porter)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 06:21:00 GMT

In a recent posting, Tom Perigrin (tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu) remarked that
Buchanan misrepresented Hillary Clinton's views. Mr. Peregrin gave a rough
quotation from memory of a line of Ms. Clinton's, and remarked:

>Note that this does not say marriage is slavery,  anymore than the statement
>that "Past presidents include Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan" says that
>Carter == Reagan.

I have quoted Ms. Clinton's text verbatim and at a little greater length
elsewhere in this newsgroup in the last day or two. I would only note here that
her statement DOES INDEED suggestion a comparison between marriage and slavery
(both are or were "dependancy relationships"), just as your example suggests a
point of comparison between Carter and Reagan (both were presidents). You say
that your example statement does not indicate that Carter = Reagan, which is
true but beside the point. No one is saying that Ms. Clinton EQUATED marriage
with slavery, simply that she compared them.

William Porter  * * * Classical Languages: University of Houston
Internet: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu /or/ CompuServe: 75430,1351

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 17:04:34 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: What about Gore & abortion?
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <mykes.0c44@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
>[Quayle] has no pro-abortion beliefs - that is clear from his statements 
>over and over and over again.  I sure appreciate the VP's candor in
>answering the question AT ALL.  His answer was NOT a politician's answer, 
>but one from the heart.

Pro-choice and anti-abortion are not mutually exclusive.  Quayle could
hold both beliefs (which he apparently does) without being logically 
inconsitent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "The best thing about rainforests is they never suffer
                   from drought."  ---J. Danforth Quayle
                "Western Civilization is addictive and dysfunctional."
                   --- Albert Gore
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------