HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sstover@sumax.seattleu.edu (Maven o'Mirth)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:55:48 GMT
Organization: Seattle University, Seattle WA

In article <1992Sep14.172419.20624@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jason K. Schechner) writes:
[lots deleted]
> 
>	Maybe so, but it is true.  THINK about it for a second.  Most
>people will readily admit that those who've attended college are the
>more intelligent members of our society.  Therefore, by sheer
>definition the rest of the populace, IN GENERAL, is not as smart.  Of
>course there are going to be smart people who don't go to college, and
>dumb people who do, but in the general case my original statement was
>correct.

Our man Dan went to college.

>
>-- 
>"Make up your stories, the truth's so hard to say.
> Brain is numb, and your tounge, will surely dig your grave." 
>							-Dave Mustaine

Hmmmmm...
--
Sheryl Stover				|  How passing fair is youth,
*>sstover@sumax.seattleu.edu<*		|  Forever fleeting away;
and Hemingway, feline philosopher	|  Who happy would be, let him be;
Watch this .sig for news of the		|  Of tomorrow, who can say?
upcoming album from Seattle's 		|	-Lorenzo de'Medici
premier band, the Medici!		|


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 17:06:50 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Labels (was: A journalist speaks...)
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1950@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.132919.357@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>->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.
>
> I would prefer the terms "Big Government Types" and "Small Government Types"
>or something close to that. Some liberals would be small and some conservatives
>would be big. How would you describe the in-betweens ?
>
That's better, but they're still labels.  These particular labels tend to
reflect your own personal priorities - you obviously feel the number one
priority is the size of government.  Others have different priorities.
While I think government should be smaller, that issue will take a back
seat to others on my list.  I would like to see candidates get away from
this practice of fear-mongering and inflammatory labelling and start
presenting clear, definitive statements on where they stand with respect
to a spectrum of important issues.

As to your question: how about the "majority?" :-)  Seriously, this 
illustrates the problems with labelling.  You get two extreme labels,
and the middle ground is left out.  More often than not, the middle
ground represents the majority.  Who was it, anyway, who decided that
you're either (a) or (b) on any issue?  Why can't there be a (c), (d),
etc.?  Why didn't you say there's also a "Medium Government Type"?
This isn't an attack, just a curious observation about how we as a
people tend to focus on extremes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "Any town having more churches than bars has a serious
                   social problem." ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 11:19:49 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange

In article <1992Sep13.045615.465@eng.ufl.edu> jason@alpha.ee.ufl.edu (Jason Nadrowski) writes:
> The ridicule of Dan Quale has gone far enough!  It's gotten so bad that
> the jokes are preceived as fact.  People actually believe that Quale
> is a stupid moron.  Didn't someone call him a functioning illiterate on
> this net?  He is human.  He makes mistakes just like you and me.  
> 
> The ongoing jokes about Dan have become as bothersome as those jokes
> about that lady who fell and couldn't get up.
> 

I have seen quite a few of Mr Quayle's finer moments on TV over the past
several years......
 
Sure. People make mistakes. Mr Quayle's mistake is trying to be something he is
not. All too often he "mis-speaks" himself and people have a slightly slearer
idea about what he really thinks - as opposed to how his handlers want to
portray him.......

Jokes? Facts? The reality of Dan Quayle is almost funny - if he weren't the
Veep.
 
Local Rotary Chairman? What a guy! 
 
Vice-President? Dump the bum.
 
Just depends on your point of view with respect to what you expect from
someone in his position.

Steve





-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | End the two-party duopoly. Vote 
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         | for the Mixed-Member Proportional 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            | (MMP) voting system on Sept. 19th. 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       | Give yourself a vote that *counts*!
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Campaigns in Republican territory
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:59:30 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Sep9.205623.2473@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
->It was a good article because it made Clinton look bad?  The press is
->Liberal biased if it makes Bush look bad?  

 Thanks for using question marks. I dont think it was a good article be-
cause it made Clinton look bad. Its appears to be good because its what
news reporting is supposed to be. An actual account of what happened. The
main problem I and you Liberals should have is with the TV coverage. How
do we know that the BOOs actually occurred and where loud, without hear-
ing the event for ourselves. Arent you concerned that the entire BOOing
incident could have been blown out of proportion by the media. Lets all
demand to hear the recording of the BOO's. Lets stop censorship !

-Stevie,  is negative press of Democratic canidates objective while negative
-press of Repubicans (Sp?) liberal bias?  Perhapes the bias is in the eye of
-the beholder?  Perhapes tyour definition of Objectivity is biased towards
-Repubicans (sp?).  

 Not at all. I want equal treatment for the Democrates and Republicans and
Libertarians and others by the Media. Try this example on for size.

 What if the presidential race is actually a dead heat. If the Big Govern-
ment Media is lying and biasing polls and telling us that Clinton leads by
10 points, dont you think that might prompt many pro-bush people to make
sure that there vote gets counted ? Could that also cause a lot of pro-
Clinton people to fell that their vote is not needed ? This bias has the
ability to make sure Clinton loses. Biasing news and pretending its not
biased is undemocratic. Biasing the news and telling people you are is
at least being honest.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4848 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3754
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Far Right's New "Bill of Rights"
Date: 14 Sep 92 03:12:12 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Sep8.154118.777@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>	Hmm. can we get GHWB to take some responsibilty for the worst
>economic environment since the depression? Last I heard, it was still the
>fault of the "deadlock congress". Last I heard, George wasn't responsible
>for the bills the he signed, let alone the stuff that he never heard of
>(like Iran Contra).

Hmm, can we also blame the rest of the world's poor economic conditions on
Bush?  In Canada, unemployment is 11%.  Japanese companies are reporting
losses for the first time in their history.  French farmers are demonstrating
in the streets.  The press seems to ignore putting the whole story out in
one piece, and when it's split up, it doesn't have the effect of showing
this slowdown in global terms.  And in case you haven't heard, there have
been far worse conditions since the depression, how about '76 for instance?
And I remember very well the conditions in '79 - that's why Reagan got in
in the first place.  The only chance the Democrats have is convincing you
that this is the worst it's been since the depression, and it seems you
bought that argument.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 01:25:45 GMT

jks2x@holmes.acc.Virginia.EDU (Jason K. Schechner) writes:

>In article <1992Sep12.170742.35@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>>Keywords: 
>>
>>In article <PLuyqB4w165w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us> elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes:
>>]Here in New Orleans, on WWL radio, Limbaugh runs from 1-4.  I had WWL on at
>>]about 3:55 to catch the WSJ report, and heard Uncle Rush close the show.  He
>>]was telling his audience of highly literate and intelligent listeners not to
>>]worry about anything important over the weekend because he was going to tell
>>]them how to think on Monday.  Yup, we're dealing with a serious education
>>]problem in the US if Limbaugh is telling 13 million folks how to think.
>>
>>Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that Limbaugh is kidding
>>when he says that. Listen to him for a bit and you'll realize that he
>>is very much an entertainer. By the way, I was also listening to that
>>show, and I heard it too, but I recognize humour.


>	Yeah, but the fact of the matter is that the bulk of his
>listeners DON'T have that half a brain.  Almost all (of not all) of
>the people who have access to this network are at least reasonably
>well educated and can see the obvious sarcasm in Rush's statement.
>HOWEVER, the majority of the American people aren't quite that lucky.
>(and by lucky I mean a)lucky enough to be intelligent and b)lucky
>enough to have gone to college).  
>	They hear that and it goes through their minds that he really
>will tell them what to think.  Try and remember what the smarter kids
>back in your high school were called.  Right.  The smart kids, in
>general were ridiculed just for being smart.  Intelligenece,
>unfortunately, has gotten a bad rap in American schools in the past
>decade or two.  Turn that around and this country will be back on it's
>way to the top again.

Where do you get this philosophy that Rush's listeners are so stupid as
to have Rush do their thinking for them?  I hear this line of reasoning
constantly from liberals who hate Rush (and not just on the net).

It seems a good rationalization, I guess.  Since you don't approve of
his opinions, and know how many people actually listen (and assume most
of them agree with him), what other conclusion can you come to?  They
must all be stupid.  Makes a person wonder how intelligent people are
who hold this opinion...

-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sims@possum.den.mmc.com (John Sims)
Subject: Re: Family Values? We don' need no...
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics, Denver
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 15:51:48 GMT

jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:


>FACT:
>Bush and Quayle have done nothing to bring about a change in America
>that would help the ailing families.  Too many families are poverty-
>stricken and cannot afford the values extolled by GHWB and JDQ ( it is
>easier to keep your values when you can feed your kids!)  

To quote Rocket J Squirrel:  "Again?  But that trick never works!"  
Alright, I'll bite, just where is it stated that you have to make a
certain amount of money to have values?  Since when are values some sort
of discretionary spending item in a budget that vanish when the bills
get too high?  How do you explain the "yuppie phenomenon", where the
parents make lots of money, but ignore their kids, and just try to buy
their respect?  I grew up poor, and in retrospect, don't notice a lack
of values in my family.

John
-- 
John Sims    sims@pogo.den.mmc.com
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4972 alt.news-media:1332 alt.fan.dan-quayle:3844
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 16 Sep 92 04:19:25 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <mjenkins.716220983@cunews> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
>>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

Here, here, Michael, we agree with you 100%.  Ever notice that the Clinton-
Clinton-Gore ticket is the one that keeps whinning about dirty campaign
tactics and how they are going to be called names by the nasty Republicans,
and yet listen to them and their supporters.  I've never heard such a bunch
of sarcastic, name calling folks in my life.  And I do believe it all
began with the Chairperson of this years Demo Love Fest - Ma Richards -
"Poor George, he cain't hep it, etc...", followed by Teddy's "Where
was George?".  It's good to see the party of the left doesn't resort to
name calling.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4729 alt.politics.bush:4973 alt.politics.clinton:5231 alt.politics.elections:13018 talk.abortion:36294 alt.sex:29284 talk.politics.misc:45211
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Abortion rights and responsibilities
Date: 14 Sep 92 04:27:40 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

Just a thought (it's after midnight for this post). Usually when one is
accorded rights, one is also accorded responsibilities with which one
should use these rights. For example, no slander/libel when invoking
"free speech," or shooting innocents when owning a gun, and so on. As
the signs from pro-choicers/pro-abortionists say "Abortion rights NOW!"
I am wondering what responsibilities are accorded to this
constitutionally protected (according to the Supreme Court) right.

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck (Duke BME '93)		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
I'm too busy for my class, too busy for my clubs, too busy for my work.
I'm too busy for my mail, too busy for my news, too busy for my calls.
I'm too busy for this .sig. 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bwatson@nyx.cs.du.edu (bruce watson)
Subject: Re: Far Right's New "Bill of Rights"
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 21:52:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.131807.1836@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
>
>
>                          Amendment 6
>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
>to a speedy and public trial before he is found guilty.  He is
>entitled to the assistance of counsel for his defense but not for
>any appeals.
>
You're too lenient here. The accused property should be seized before 
trial. Only those who can afford counsel should have it and there should
be no appeals.


--
Bruce Watson  wats@nyx.cs.du.edu  Toy Cows, Toy Cows in Africa, Toy Cows
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4349 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5153 alt.politics.bush:4336 talk.politics.misc:44127
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Clinton Quotes from Bush Speech, etc.
Date: 8 Sep 92 13:37:44 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

[Apologies if this goes up twice.]

I'd like a bunch of before and after quotes:

Would someone e-mail me the Clinton quote Bush used to show
that Clinton was flaky in his support for GWII (Gulf War II).  
Also, would someone e-mail me a Clinton quote from *after*
GWII.  

I'd like the same for Gore regarding when to stop the war 
(didn't Gore say it was time to "stop the slaughter"?), both
during and after the war (including his second guessing of
the decision to stop the war).

thanks,
anwar
-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: Clinton's Cabinet (humorous suggestions)
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:27:42 GMT

In <5181@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:

>For a little levity in the doldrums of politics, I'm interested in what
>you would think a Clinton cabinet would look like. We already have a little
>idea of who Clinton thinks is qualified to be Vice President and Justice of
>the Supreme Court (Marchbishop Cuomo). It has even been remarked that
>Hillary will get a Cabinet position (like Secretary of State, not Attorney
>General -- can't remember the source). So anyone out there please fill
>in the following blanks (humor please) with regards to who you think will
>be in a Clinton cabinet (and other executive office positions).

>Secretary of State

Nobel Laureate #1

>Secretary of Defense

Nobel Laureate #2

>Secretary of Treasury

Nobel Laureate #3

>Secretary of the Interior

Nobel Laureate #4

>Secretary of Health and Human Services

Nobel Laureate #5

>Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

Nobel Laureate #6

>Secretary of Energy

Nobel Laureate #7 (optional, we don't really know if it was six or
eight Nobel Laureats who support bills & gore...er, I mean Bill
Clinton and Al Gore.)

>Secretary of Education

Nobel Lau...well, you get the idea.

Michael
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Carter bad, Bush good?
Date: 9 Sep 92 03:37:44 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

All the numbers (number in poverty, poverty rate, how much they had in
ASSETS, how much in UNCOUNTED government financial and food assistance,
and other assorted demographics) came from the same source -- the Census
Bureau.

What qualifies people for poverty is INCOME, not ASSETS.  And they don't
count what the government gives your in that income......

Prior to the "war on poverty" the measure of poverty was not so skewed.

-- 
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   |
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:4458 alt.politics.clinton:4624 alt.news-media:1187
From: jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Clinton Screws Up! Press Reports It!
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:19:03 GMT
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology

egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

>In article <1992Sep9.153704.19033@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Sep9.120715.16501@afit.af.mil> jswitzer@afit.af.mil (Chip Switzer) writes:
>>>>In a startling change of events this morning, my newspaper actually
>>>>had a (short) paragraph on a recent Clinton faux pas.  
>>>>
>>>>Seems at a campaign stop he railed on the big spending we were doing
>>>>on military weapons systems and brought up the Patriot which "can fly
>>>>through doors and down chimineys."  Hmmmm.  Probably just an honest
>>>>mistake from somebody who doesn't know a good offense from a bad
>>>>defense...
>>>>
>>
>>>And then Quayle screwed up in criticizing Clinton...saying that
>>>it was "cruise" missiles that could perform these feats...
>>
>>>Gerald
>>
>>The sea-launched Tomahawk cruise missile *can* do these things.  It
>>was one of our foremost "smart" weapons.  Do you remember the reporters
>>in Baghdad commenting on the Tomahawk coming down the street and 
>>"making a right at the intersection."?  These missiles can be accurate
>>to within a few feet.

>Re: Turning right at the intersection.  Is this a slight exaggeration, or artistic license on the part of the reporter?  If you're going, what, 800MPH,
>and you hang a right on Elm, how many G's are you going to pull?

><and here, we pull many more G's than is safe, and zoom into a silly,
>silly argument>

Obviously, the missile did not really turn a 90 degree corner.  It was
a quote I heard from a reporter while I was in Saudi.  I assumed it was
a widely heard report.

>The reference by both Clinton and Quayle was not to the cruise
>missiles, for which we didn't have the pretty pictures on CNN, but the
>laser-guided bombs.

Yes, this is getting to be a silly argument.  The fact is, CNN made a
mistake in trying to counter Clinton's mistake with one from Quayle.
By the way, there are many other types of "smart" weapons than the 
laser-guided bomb, and I assume you saw pictures of those also on CNN.
-- 

Chip Switzer                            "A witty saying proves nothing." 
jswitzer@afit.af.mil                              -- Voltaire 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Clinton, draft dodger. YUP!
Organization: SPS
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:53:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.063948.27309@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

|> 	So who was worse? Someone who tried to avoid military service
|> that he didn't like or someone who was gung-ho about the war but who
|> didn't want to contribute anything serious to fighting it?

They should be treated _exactly_ the same.  Quayle withstood intensive scrutiny
in 88 and Clinton should now.  This double syandard stuff if goofy.

The problem with Clinton is that he received an induction notice then talked to his board.
He negotiated an extension and agreed to join the ROTC.  Then the U.S. announced a draft lottery
and all drafting was delayed for 4 months.  Clinton then reneged on his agreement and 4 months
later received a high lottery number.  Who knows what Clinton would have done if his number was 
low? - my guess is that he would have tried to honor his agreement and join the ROTC.

Having a draft is wrong.  It is against the individualist spirit of the Constitution
and Declaration of Independence.

My only problem about the Clinton military service issue is he made a commitment and then
reneged on it - a definite character flaw.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell