HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: A TRUE LANDSLIDE
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:27:20 GMT
Reply-To: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, N.H.

In article <1992Nov10.175225.23414@webo.dg.com> lyford@dagny.webo.dg.com (Lyford Beverage) writes:
>In article <92315.011135MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu>, Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>|> People, it's President Clinton now. Gag or applaud as is your wont, but
>|> whining about the percentages won't change one single thing.
>
>Actually, it's President-Elect Clinton now.  Won't be President Clinton
>until January 21, 1993.

Actually, he isn't even President-elect yet.  He won't be that until
the electoral college votes are counted by Vice President Dan Quayle.

God bless,

Michael

-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Plymouth State Women's Soccer - #2 in the nation (Div. 3)  (15-0-2)
 Three wins from the national championship.  v. U MA Dartmouth  Sun.
From: jfr@RedBrick.COM
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: These statistics don't lie. (unless u p
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:41:31 GMT
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA

In article <1992Nov4.233355.19162@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>In article 11724@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
>>Thank you for enlightening me. Now please tell me what 12 years of Reagan/Bush
>>have to do with state, local and excise taxes.  The point was, and still is,
>>that at the FEDERAL LEVEL Reagan LOWERED rates for everyone, while at the same
>>time generating MORE revenue.  I am sorry that I was not more specific but one
>>would assume that statistics coming from CBO take into account federal tax 
>>rates.

  This is just a complete unadulterated misreading of the facts (as most
  Reaganites seem to be willing to do continually).  Reagan lowered the
  RATES for SOME people (mostly the highest income people), eliminated
  the steps of the graduated tax (which lowered rates for people in the
  higher ends of the older brackets but left them roughly the same for
  the people in the lower ends of the brackets), and then proceeded to
  emasculate the deduction structure for people who needed it most.  
  The end results is that the DOLLAR reductions (which are what is
  really important here, not the RATE reductions) resulted in most
  middle income people paying higher taxes, most lower income people
  paying slightly lower taxes (but only by a few hundred bucks or so
  in most cases) and upper income people saving millions and even
  billions in some cases because the upper tax rate dropped from 
  48% to 28%.  In 1980, only about 5% of the people paid taxes in
  brackets above 28%.  These people got a multi-billion dollar tax
  break and the per-person savings was orders of magnitude higher
  than the savings of anyone else.  Middle incomers found that they
  reached the 28% bracket earlier and with no skips from 15% to
  28%, their total tax burden went up.  Trust me, I paid it in
  spades.  From 1980 to 1982, with almost no income increase, my
  taxes went up almost 20%.  Added to that the deduction elimination
  (interest deductions were phased out, deductions for sales tax
  and gas taxes were dropped, higher limits were placed on the
  minimum level that medical deductions could be used, etc) and 
  most middle incomers got raped.  True, these deduction cuts
  hit higher income folks as well, but they got a comfortable
  20% tax RATE cut on their high level incomes.  Losing a couple
  of grand in deduction expenses doesn't hurt them much.  To me,
  it meant the difference between a tax cut and a tax increase.

  Hey, don't worry, Bill Clinton's gonna put things right.  Trust
  me, he will.  And the Reaganites will pay through the nose, I
  hope.  They deserve it.

  Jon Rosen
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: EIVERSO@cms.cc.wayne.edu
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Wayne State University, C&IT
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:45:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.034239.3528@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:
 
>Since George is on his way out, we will no longer need alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
>alt.rush-limbaugh, or alt.politics.bush.  I will be sending out the
>rmgroups for these three groups.  Also, since Clinton is now president,
>I will create alt.president.clinton.  Since the volume should be large,
>we'll hold on to alt.politics.clinton for a while.
 
Heh heh heh! Now that is a world class joke there, boy! heh heh!
 
"Followup-to: misc.test"? And they fell for it hook line & sinker!
 
Here's a dollar there, hacker-boy!  --> $
 
 
--Eric
 
eiverso@cms.cc.wayne.edu  "If character isn't an issue, why did Bush lose?" :)
Detroit, Michigan  USA         "Annoy George Bush: Elect Clinton/Gore"
 
time for a new .sig
From: davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is such a bad loser
Date: 5 Nov 1992 13:26:55 -0600
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: eagle.natinst.com

In article <40551@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>I think conservatism has lost since people didn't support Bush and
>the ultra right wing, wacko religious right present at the
>republican convention. It's clear to me, they have rejected the
>ideas of the most conservative platform since ages. People are tired
>of the bigotry and hate which has become so inherent to the
>republican party.

People are probably more tired of the economy rather than the right wing that
you think IS the Republican party.  Most people voted on the economic basis,
rather than any philosophical differences with the party platform. Who reads
those anyway?  And who is bound to follow them?  Platforms seem to be an
anachronism to me, but maybe somebody knows if they still serve a useful
purpose.

>California is sending to female senators to Washington, one of them
>was running against a true conservative, Hershenson. And she carried
>the State. 

Good for California.  What does this have to do with the rest of the
country?

>Bright days are ahead of us, we have a liberal president. Cuomo will
>soon be appointed as supreme court justice, abortion will become
>more pro-choice.

Uh, well, let's hope so.  Although appointing Cuomo to anything isn't
going to brighten my day.

>The people have spoken and have spoken very clearly. It is time for
>a change....

I can agree with that.
From: kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Turn out the lights as you leave...
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:19:04 GMT
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN

In article <92317.021722KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.004104.22586@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu
>(Harry Tuttle) says:
>
>>[....]
>>Bye, bye Rush.  You probably don't read these posts, but I guess now
>>you'll have lots of time to.  The pink slip is on its way...
>
>So, you have no clue at all about Rush, then?  Most people will try to get a
>      clue about Rush before predicting anything about his show.
>
>Say, listened to any good hate-mongering on the radio, lately?
>
>------------
>Kurt Ludwick
>------------

No, we don't have to since we can just read your transcripts, Kurt.

Alex
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: This is OUTRAGEOUS...
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:16:53 GMT


		November 11, 1992:
   
Bill Clinton (President-Elect) was at the Arkansas War 
Veterans Memorial Service today.
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. A DRAFT DODGER "honoring" war
veterans with his presence? 
  
Okay, okay. Let's just put this in perspective. 



Bill Clinton at the Veterans' Day Memorial is like:
  
* Sinead O'Connor at Burger King 
* Willie Horton outside prison
* Jerry Brown having Earth citizenship 
* Gloria Steinem chasing men 
* Madonna teaching chastity 
* Jack Kervorkian doing CPR  
* Earth First! running a logging company
* Fidel Castro joining Amnesty International
* The Sacramento Kings at the NBA Playoffs
* Dr. Spock giving corporal punishment 
* David Duke in the NAACP 
* Van Halen teaching classical music
* Molly Yard in a swimsuit
 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:27:19 GMT

Eric Iverson writes:
> How many votes did Bush get? I think with the higher voter turnout,
> Clinton probably got far more votes than Bush did in '88. Maybe more
> Than Reagan in '80 or '84!

I thought the first (more votes than Bush in '88) might be plausible,
but the other two are predictions divorced from reality.  And when I
checked the figures tonight, the first one turned out to be pretty far
wrong as well.

The last Republican to garner fewer popular votes than Clinton was
Gerald Ford (1976), and even he missed by just a little over 600,000
(39,788,218 to 39,147,770).  Before that, we have to go back to Nixon's
first campaign (1968, 31,785,480) to find a lower Republican vote tally
than this one.  "Mandate," indeed.

====	===========	=============	====	===	========
Year	Candidate	Popular Votes	%	E.V.	Turnout
====	===========	=============	====	===	========
1992	Clinton		39,788,218	43 		55%
	Bush		35,151,640	38 
	Perot		17,332,813	19 
====	===========	=============	====	===	========
1988	Bush		47,917,342	54 	426	50%
	Dukakis		41,013,030	46	112
====	===========	=============	====	===	========
1984	Reagan		54,450,603	58.8	525	53%
	Mondale		37,573,671	40.6	 13
====	===========	=============	====	===	========
1980	Reagan		43,904,153	50.8	489	54%
	Carter		35,483,883	41.0	 49
	Anderson	 5,719,222	 6.6	  0
====	===========	=============	====	===	========
1976	Carter		40,825,839	50.0	297	53 1/2%
	Ford		39,147,770	47.9	240
	McCarthy	   680,930	 0.8	  0
====	===========	=============	====	===	========
1972	Nixon		47,169,911	60.7	520	55 1/2%
	McGovern	29,170,383	37.5	 17
	Schmitz		 1,098,482	 1.4	  0
====	===========	=============	====	===	========
1968	Nixon		31,785,480	43.4	301	<not listed>
	Humphrey	31,275,165	42.7	191
	Wallace		 9,906,473	13.5	 46
====	===========	=============	====	===	========

Sources:
1992 vote totals  -- 11/04/92 San Jose Mercury News, page 24EL
Voter turnouts    -- 11/05/92 San Jose Mercury News, page 1A
All other figures -- Whitney, _The American Presidents_, page 457
-- 
Chris Stassen						stassen@alc.com
DISCLAIMER:  My employer's account, but not their opinions.
From: joltman@doctor-pepper.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Family Values B.S.
Date: 6 Nov 1992 16:19:47 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: doctor-pepper.ai.mit.edu

What about that weak family values platform of Bush's?  Get real!
What is the GOVERNMENT going to do about family values?!?  Was Bush
going to come into everyone's house and teach parents how to raise
their kids?  I can see why he 86'ed that idea, although I don't know
what took him so long.  Can ANYONE tell me what Bush's plan was to
create better family values in the US?  I could use a good laugh.

-- 
T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8055 alt.rush-limbaugh:9160 alt.politics.bush:13360 misc.test:12766 talk.bizarre:37045
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,misc.test,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 92 09:00:33 EST
Organization: ACME products - artillery division

stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber) writes:

>      Listen, we're going to have to give Clinton(e) a chance.
>    He's said that he's going to pass a great deal of legislation
>    in the first hundred days (Which last week, on MacNeal/Lehrer,
>    changed to four months, then to six months, then to a year or
>    two, all in the span of ten minutes).  By the time he's inaugurated,
>    the Congress will be attempting to repeal the 22nd amendment
>    so that Billy boy can serve long enough to clean up the mess;
>    say, until the next ice age or so...

Actually, having Clinton in office for one term may be just what America
needs; a good loud wake-up call, and a reminder of why we voted Carter out of
the White House.

Many of the people who voted for Clinton are too young to remember 17%
inflation, 21% home mortgages, gas lines, the "misery index".. The pictures on
TV of hundreds of people lined up for days on end to apply for a handful of
jobs.. The DJIA down in the 600 range, and the federal government paying 14%
interest to finance the programs he's spooling up.

Think of it as a periodic booster shot of reality for America. :)

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Bluster's Last Stand
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 14:40:36 GMT

darsie@eecs.ucdavis.edu (Richard Darsie) writes:
>                        BLUSTER'S LAST STAND
>                      A Cure for Rush Syndrome?

>                          by R. V. Scheide

    Interesting. A+ for creativity. C- for content.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 02:24:32 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: You probably missed this
 <11NOV199211234571@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>

Hilarious.  Especially the references to those annoying commercials.
I shout at the radio everytime I hear "THAT's what it *IS*!!!!"   Bleah.

"Wow, Spanish is easy!"    "Shut up you BI**H!!!!"  -- me, I admit.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:7870 alt.rush-limbaugh:8973 alt.politics.bush:13094 misc.test:12645 talk.bizarre:36759 alt.politics.clinton:15711
From: thieleke@icaen.uiowa.edu (Jeffrey Ray Thieleke)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,misc.test,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:50:58 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

mbur@nyx.cs.du.edu (MAC) writes:



>Since George is on his way out, we will no longer need alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
>alt.rush-limbaugh, or alt.politics.bush.  I will be sending out the
>rmgroups for these three groups.  Also, since Clinton is now president,
>I will create alt.president.clinton.  Since the volume should be large,
>we'll hold on to alt.politics.clinton for a while.


>Ta-ta for now,
>M

*snicker*  Alright, Captain, you do that!
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8144 alt.rush-limbaugh:9215 alt.politics.bush:13479 misc.test:12839 talk.bizarre:37203 alt.politics.clinton:16344
From: bd@fluent@dartmouth.EDU (Brice Dowaliby)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,misc.test,talk.bizarre,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: rmgroup alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 7 Nov 92 14:06:55 GMT
Reply-To: bd%fluent@dartmouth.EDU
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH

jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:

>Of course, thanks to liberals, the Bill of Rights is 
>considered to have only 9 amendments already, so Clinton won't have
>as big a job to do.

I'm a liberal - which one of the amendments is it I'm
supposed to not be in support of?

Since it's the conservatives who are threatening the right
to privacy (with their anti-abortion stance) and the
conservatives who are threatening the right to free speech (with
their wanting an amendment to prohibit flag-burning) I am
confused about why it is you think liberals are attacking
the Bill of Rights.

I understand why conservatives dasagree with liberals on a number 
of issues, but what is it that makes you conservatives lie about us 
liberals so much?
-- 
   Brice Dowaliby, Fluent Inc., 10 Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH  03766
                         bd%fluent@dartmouth.edu        
             I don't speak for them, they don't speak for me
                              DoD # 0698
From: sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush's CIS email address
Date: Fri,  6 Nov 92 20:53:52 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa

To email to Rush from Internet, send to:
   70277.2502@compuserve.com
-=SJT=-
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rfa@Turing.ORG (Robert F. Alexander)
Subject: More Like MUDSLIDE
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:15:00 GMT

Take note.

What the interest rate is today.
What the GNP is today.
What Inflation is today.
What unemployment is today.

I'll see ya all in three years to remind all those who have
forgotten. 

Slick Willie has NO mandate. He has no real power or
authority. CHANGE.....HaHaHaHaHa....Change what...
Maybe his socks....Sure glad I can tie my meager income up
so the Dems can't get their hans on it.  

This is gonna be fun....
-- 
rfa@turing.ORG    ( KD4QBD )         /      BROADCAST ENGINEER
(804) 296-7697  Hm                   /      WCHV         WWWVV
(804) 977-5566  Wk                   /      Oldies   AlbumRock
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: A step too far...
Date: 13 Nov 92 05:38:50 GMT
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH



All right...

Limbaugh has gotten to the point where even the most conservative person
is becoming disgusted with him.

For a long time, he has been bashing liberals in general.  No problem,
the liberals have been bashing conservatives, too.

For the past 9 months he has been bashing Clinton.  No problem here, either.
As a public figure, Clinton expects such treatment, and has managed to shed
it all.  Indeed, he has turned most of it to an advantage.

Gadflies are necessary in our society.  They keep thing on a reasonably
even keel.

But Limbaugh's antics over the past few days have gone beyond political
commentary or even satire...they have become cruel and obnoxious, and show
no sign of stopping.

I refer to Limbaugh's treatment and commentary on the Clinton's 12 year old
daughter.

Has he nothing better to do then insult a child who has no political clout,
who has done nothing controversial, whose only "offense" has been to be the
daughter of Limbaugh's political nemesis?  

He has gone beyond the bounds of commentator and satirist, and become instead,
a public nuiesense.

It's time to bring the bastard down.

Beginning tomorrow, I begin organizing a boycott of all business enterprises
which support or promote Rush Limbaugh.

To wit:

Any person who is disgusted by Rush limbaugh's antics, begin boycotting all
products of any company which advertises on Rush Limbaugh.  Boycott also the
radio and TV stations which carry his product, and all other advertisers on 
these stations.  Write letters to the companies which this boycott effects,
and explain to them why you are doing so.(A sample letter will be presented
here in a separate post).

Also, encourage your friends and family to do so.  Write letters to the 
editors of your local papers, encouraging others to follow suit.


If we work together, in a concerted effort, we can remove this idiot from
the public domain, and send a warning to others who do the same.

As a note to the Limbaugh fans:

Those of you who will decry this movement will make claims that we attempt
to limit Mr. Limbaugh's first amendment rights.  Not so.  We have no
desire to shut him up, we just make it plain that we feel this type of
"journalism" has no place in America.  If Mr. Limbaugh wishes to speak,
let him.....

...On a soapbox on the street with the rest of the doomsday crowd.


More to follow....



-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //   No God, Know Peace   /\     * 
*                    Kelley L. Miller  //  Know God, No Peace    /P \    *    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //                        /____\   *
*****************  James Trafficant for US Senate, 1998  *****************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Network projections
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:47:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.035334.20400@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <BxLyKH.H4q@ssesco.com> nau@ssesco.com (William Nau) writes:
>>>Plus something noone has mentioned is the FACT that ABC news on the evening
>>>newscast (before even the first poll closed) said (DIRECT QUOTE) "Since WE
>>>promiced not to predict results of the election until the polls close, we
>>>will not do that, but, the winds of change are in the air."
>>>
>>>I immediately changed channels.  Face it the Networks (at least the three
>>>major ones) are A**HOLES who want to affect the election for their own
>>>benefit.
>>
>>I can't remember which network it was, but one of them declared Clinton
>>a winner ONE MONTH before the election.  That pissed me off.  In general,
>>this year, I didn't watch any of the news on the election.  I just watched
>>the debates, interviews and Perot's charts.
>
You know, if you go beyond politics, the way the network gets ratings figures
on entertainment shows is also open to suspicion.  Ever wondered why the trash
shows get high ratings and are allowed to stay on the air while anything with
a shred of intelligence gets canceled?  Then they try to convince us that we're
supposed to like the gutter swill they're cranking out.  The ratings figures
always seem to contradict public opinion about those shows.  The meda has
elevated crap to high art.  Instead of just informing us and allowing us
to make up our own minds (think for ourselves) they have taken it upon
themselves to dictate to us what movies to see, what shows to watch, and
what music to listen to, and who to vote for.  Is this a form of censorship??

We're afraid of the government telling us what to do, and  vehemently oppose
government-imposed censorship, but accept without question the thingthere's
no difference between the government dictating to us what we see and hear
and how to vote, and the companies that run the media doing the exact same
thing.  Either way it's wrong.

No, I'm not a sore loser about the election, but think about it--how many
people may have voted based only on what they saw on TV?? I know this
guy who voted for Clinton but could not tell me why beyond his rehashing
what he had seen on CNN.  No joke!!  He flatly refused to listen to anything
the world around him.  The issue isn't that he voted for Clinton, the issue
is that he could not engage in a discussion about why he voted the way he
did.

Speaking of media bias--any of you see MTV's "Rock The Vote" thing they
were running during the campaign?? Is it just me or did MTV become
a 24-hour a day ad for Clinton?

Simon


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh