HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Chelsea insult, apology
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:20:26 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

linda@tellabs.com (Linda Jensen) writes:
'	RE: the alleged 'mistake' where photos of Celsea Clinton
'	and Millie the dog were switched...
'
'	Isn't that show taped?  So couldn't the 'mistake' have
'	been corrected before air time?  Didn't those involved in
'	the show recognize tastelessness and cruelty?
'
'	Nice  apology that followed.  The 'audience' gaffawing 
'	and giggling as Rush explains how 'Chelsea Clinton can't 
'	help what she looks like'.  Nice guy. Nice audience.  Nice
'	show.
'
'	Rush is not only willing to pick on a little girl, but
'	then doesn't even have gonads to stand up to what he did.
'	Instead, he offers up some very lame backpeddling.  Gutless
'	bully in my book......

I won't apologize for Rush. 

I did not see the show in question. I am disappointed that such things
happened on his show, but again I can't watch it since I've got classes.

I don't know how long that incident was on the show. It is possible that
that part could have been edited out, but knowing Rush through the radio
show, cutting and pasting his show is like cutting the middle section of
a mystery novel: the whole thing would make no sense if that happened.

As for taping the show, generally you can only afford one take of a talk
show. I can't imagine David Letterman's show going through three takes
(unless it's his viewer mail stuff) to complete his show. Mistakes
unfortunately do happen in TV, and if the switcher in the control room
deliberately erred, he should be reprimanded or fired.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from Defeat)
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:11:36 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

dbernard@clesun.Central.Sun.COM (Dave Bernard) writes:
: >I dunno, I've never seen any polling data on this- but I'd imagine
: >that a majority of the American people (perhaps a slim one) 
: >would feel that keeping women out of the priesthood was rather
: >silly.
: 
: Point is, the bishop's conference had no power to decide and rule upon
: anything of the sort.  The issue in question was a pastoral, a statement
: of their outlook.  It was the media which hyped a strawman issue.
: 
: Since the Constitution allows for the separation of CHurch and State, the
: American people do not, of course, vote on what rules or beliefs the members
: of this or that particular religion should freely choose to accept, no matter
: how silly those beliefs might appear.       

Absolutely correct.  But a religion which espouses the doctrine
that priests must be male because they are in the apostolic
succesion, and the apostles were male, should not cry foul when
people criticize that idea; it's not "Catholic bashing"; it's 
discussion.

Bill
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Balanced Court (was: Re: God Help Us All! (mutter, mutter) Amen!)
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:36:40 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <1dl608INN5gr@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach
) writes:
>The court is to act as a balance beteen the congress and the prez.  No
>where is it said the couurt is supposed to BE balanced,
> although I would think it would
>be in the best long term interest of the land that it be balanced.
One would think so, BUT....
No one (as proved by the recent Presidential election) like gridlock in
lawmaking.  Wouldn't this be yet another area of gridlock?

>-- 
>Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
>MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
>my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
>   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.

Jennifer, "let's get a LITTLE more accurate with those Subject: lines, eh?"
JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT
Forget Rush!  What's the Comedy Channel going to do?  All the dumb blonde
jokes resurfaced earlier this year and are worn out now.
---------------------------------------------------
I need a smiley for the sarcasmically impaired.
JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: roby@brahms.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Final call for Clinton cabinet nominations
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:51:24 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware

In article <7221@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>A few days ago (more like a week) I called upon people to send in their
>humorous suggestions of a Clinton cabinet. Now, by no means is my list
>complete, but here are the positions I have called to be filled. If you
>have more, I can write them in.

[excellent list of huomorous appointments for Clinton administration
 deleted for space]

These are very funny...  But they will have a tough job trying to 
be funny enough after the ACTUAL Reagan/Bush appointments... 
(James Watts, for starters...  )  :-)



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:10179 alt.politics.clinton:17602
From: sderby@crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Stuart P. Derby)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Date: 21 Nov 1992 16:27:27 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: crick.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu

In article <1992Nov21.144901.17238@athena.cs.uga.edu> tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.223342.11374@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>Now we get to the real reason why gays want to be in the military.  They 
>>want to take showers with men ... [deleted]

>I do think Ted has something here...something the top media folks have not
>discussed to my knowledge, and especially I do not see any headlines in
>papers over the issue.  

>	*Sexual Attraction:  Men do not shower with women in the military
>because of various reasons, one of them being because of sexual attraction. 
>Analogously, why would one want to allow for Men who are sexually attracted
>to Men shower together?  The common response to this question is, "Give me a
>break, sex is not the complete focus of gay men, and they have much sense
>than to stare at other men sexually in the showers."  

  Did you go to a public high school? Take gym? I did. There were 60 or
so guys in my gym class. A couple of them were gay and "out". The whole
class knew they were gay. What happened? Not much. A few guys were paranoid
for the first few weeks, always looking for a "fag", to make sure they
weren't being watched or whatever. The usual class bullies harrassed the
gays a bit, until the novelty wore off. No big deal. After a couple
months, everybody forgot about it.
  At the University I attended (Rice U.), Phys. Ed. was required,
and again there were some gays in class. We all survived.
  I don't think it's particularly unreasonable to ask the grown-ups
in the military to behave as well as we expect those 15-year old
high schoolers.

  Being straight myself, I compare the "gays in the showers" idea
to my own experiences with mixed-sex bathing and dressing rooms.
I find that, if the situation was not overtly sexual to begin with
(e.g. 3 couples on a triple-date going skinny dipping), that just
taking off one's clothes doesn't "sexualize" things. With close
friends, you're friendly, with casual friends you're casual,
with strangers you're aloof. No big deal. After the
novelty wears off, all that skin looks pretty much alike.

-Stu
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Derby - sderby@bcm.tmc.edu  |   Anagram of the Year:
Baylor College of Medicine         | Tuesday, November Third <==>
Houston, Texas                     | Many Voted, Bush Retired
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:9849 talk.politics.misc:60521 alt.politics.clinton:17320
From: rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush )
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Anwar Mohammed's possibly fraudulen (was Re: Trickle Down Economic
Date: 17 Nov 92 05:50:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UCLA Dept of Astronomy

In article <1992Nov16.214711.16499@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>In article <1992Nov14.133426.21492@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
>scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) writes:
>
>>      I don't think either side is lying on this one. Bob is technically 
>> correct, but Anwar is correct if you make an inference that is obvious and 
>> unavoidable. Now that the election is over, and now that everyone who has 
>> something to say about this unfortunate incident has had his say, I think we 
>> ought to either leave it in the past or take the discussion to e-mail. Any 
>> objections?
>> 
>>                                        Steve
>
>
>I have a major onjection,  I think it is very important that an open a free
>discussion of the bush-organizations activities be brought to the light of
>day.  Most importantly is the fact that information about President
>Clintons passport and travels were circulated through the group.  As we all
>know that information was obtained unethically and possibly in grossest
>violation democracy and limits of the executive branch since Watergate. 
>What do members of this group think about the fact that the executive
>branch may have obtained this data by abusing its power and going into
>Clinton's record?  Are not they also part of the crime by spreading this
>information.  If the executive branch can search and distribute our
>passprts and other private information in an effort to gain political
>power,  and if their are stooges out their who will spread the information
>around without think,  then how can we hope to continue to enjoy the
>liberty we now have.

Get a brain, and try a little honesty before you post.  From the first
time this issue came out, the Rep. party has said that is was the
(democratic run) State Department which did those things, and the
whitehouse was NOT involved.  And finally, the liberal press is forced
to admit it.  Just yesterday, the (extremely liberal) LA times said so.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Nov 92 20:27:44 GMT

In <1992Nov20.184942.27820@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com> steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:

>In article <1992Nov20.155459.6850@nas.nasa.gov> Dan King,
>dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov writes:

>I guess I hadn't realized that I had become so out of touch and that
>I wasn't aware that so many people are using abortion as casual
>birth control. 	

Unfortunately, it's true.
However, it is _also_ true that many women are having abortions for 
financial and emotional reasons that are very important.  Abortion-rights
advocates don't want abortion to be used as a method for avoiding
responsibility, but they (and I) believe that the *possibility* of
abortion must remain open for those occasions when it may be the best
choice.

Naturally if you don't have even the morals to consider
>that you may be killing another human being, then you won't feel much
>compelled to consider taking responsible action to keep the pregnancy
>from happening in the first place.

Like not leaving your home, so that no one will rape you?  Oh wait, I forgot.
Most rapes occur within the home, committed by someone the victim knows well.
But of course, if someone is raped and gets pregnant or gets AIDS, it's her
fault because she wasn't being responsible.  I see.

>Thank you for making me aware how morally low people in this nation
>have sunk. I think I have just become much clearer in my stance on
>abortion.

Just be sure never to change your mind again.
It's a sign of moral weakness.
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Whops
Date: 15 Nov 1992 18:50:06 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <141389@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> kchiles@teton.llnl.gov (Keith Chiles) writes:
>Dear Netland,
>  I don't wish to cause a flame war, but yesterday
>Mr. Clinton announced that two of his priorities will
>be to create a bunch of jobs through an investment
>tax credit, and to allow gays into the military.  
>1. Isn't an investment tax credit a significant 
>component of trickle-down economics?  Isn't 
>this a form of reducing the tax burden on the 
>rich that Clinton campaigned against?  Rush
>is gonna have fun with this one.

Why should Rush have fun with this?  In this group, some people
have said 'Bush lost because he was not pro-Reaganomics.'  

About all Rush can say is "Welp, *WE* conservatives have been
proven right."  Over and over and over.


>2. Condoning homosexuality in the military will
>be another slap in the military face by America's
>most famous avoider of military service.  Has 

Most famous avoider?  Slap in the face?  

A military unit is
supposed to function as a team.  A military is to project power 
(via a pointed gun) and be able to use that power (via USING that
gun)  If a gun is pointed in my direction does it matter if
a homo/hetro/bi sexual is doing the pointing?      

If the argument is (in effect) 'no sex while fighting becasue
it reduces effectiveness' anyone who IS enguaged in such activites 
deserves to get shot.  Somehow, when I'm being shot at, my sex drive
is rather low.  Perhaps it's different for others.
-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 16 Nov 92 18:14:54 GMT

In article <BxrEAF.I3K@news.cso.uiuc.edu> Don Wiggins,
wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu writes:

>Seriously though, I've wondered what impact the recently passed
legislation
>in several states will have on the operation of Congress.  Since the
choice
>leadership positions are based at least partially on seniority, aren't
>those states putting themselves at a disadvantage?  I've always
favored
>term limits but it seems to me that they should be applied across the
>board.

Yes, they are accepting a temporary disadvantage in order to promote a
longterm solution.  Once enough states enact term limitation, there
will be enough members of congress with a vested interest to pass a
corresponding bill at the federal level.  Those states which are
accepting a personal sacrifice in the short term are to be commended
for their farsightedness.

With luck, it won't take long until half of the members of congress
are from term limiting states.  Then the big axe will fall.

Greg Bradt  aka  ()The Lensman()
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:32:06 GMT

grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>>It is debatable that the label "racist" can properly be applied to
>>Malcolm X.

>He spent a good deal of his time as leader of the Panthers railing against
>the "White devils".  Though he later recanted, X was undoubtedly a racist
>during most of his career.  The only way you could fail to acknowledge this
>is if you made the case that "there is no such thing as a black racist",
>a statement with which I strongly disagree.

I am not going to get in a debate as to whether Malcolm X was a racist
or not since admittedly I have not read his biography. I did see a
60 Minutes story on him though and honestly I don't remember them
mentioning the Panthers. And I strongly doubt that he was a member of
the Panthers for "most of his career". (I know, you said he was a
racist for most of career, but the only thing you used to back up
your claim that he was a racist was his membership in the Panthers.)

And you're not going to pin me into an argument that there is no such
thing as a black racist. I would never try to make such an argument.
There are black racists and there are white racists.


-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: If character isn't an issue ...
Date: 15 Nov 92 17:20:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington

green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:

>Have you noticed the clowns that supported Clinton so rabidly still haven't
>heard the election's over?  They still keep up the childish namecalling like
>a bunch of spoiled brats.  Come on children, you're supposed to be more
>mature than that, at least discuss your objections like adults.

Funny, I was about to say the same thing about all the sore losers on
the Republican side. You know the ones who are saying things like,
"JFK must be turing over in his grave, what with a draft dodger in
the White House." And predictions like "Everyone's taxes are now going to
go up and no one will be able to afford to hire anyone." Why, there are
still people who are trying to put forth the possibility that Clinton is
some KGB spy!!! Ridiculous!

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumni)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Words of Rush
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:06:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: ILS

In article <1129@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:

> And this is where you make your mistake.  You have twisted what he said
> without realizing it.  Rush did *not* assert that the ability to enter
> into agreements is what *grants* *individuals* Rights.  You have
> switched from the general to the particular.
> 
> Human beings as a group have Rights, in part, because they can in
> general enter into agreements (actually, I would say that this is not
> the reason for Rights, but a necessary condition to Rights). 
> Individuals have Rights because they are human beings, not because of
> any ability they have or lack.  Individuals can only be deprived of
> their Rights by due process of the law.
> 


I have to admit that I wish Clinton did not Waffle so much in the election,
 but compared to this he has balls.

Rush said;  animals can not enter into contracts therefore animals do not
have rights.  Now I pointed out that this could be applied to abortion and
suddenly everyone said,  no Rush didn't mean A he meant B.  When I examine
B then its no Rush didn't mean B he meant C.  Over time we get closer and
closer to the assertion that Animals don't have rights because animals
don't have rights.  (Which is what you are saying)

Talk about endless revisionism and relativism.  I don't know what scares me
more,  the open moral relativism and ruthelessness of some on the left or
the ability to covertly employ these techniques on the right.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Malcom the Tenth
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Nov 92 20:56:42 GMT

In <1992Nov21.031837.16924@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:

>grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>>Spike Lee is a racist on a level with Jesse Helms.

>You appear to have fallen prey to the poor representation of Lee in the
>press and have never seen him live. He is not a racist. And certainly not
>on the level with Helms. I should know. I live in NC. 

Actually, my opinion of Lee is drawn entirely from his movies and from the
comments he has made in the press.  I'll agree that Helms has him beat in
terms of actual racist action taken, but not in terms of racist opinion
espoused.

Lee is, by his own admission, a racial separatist.  He thinks that inter-
racial marriages are a mistake for several reasons, one of which is that
it would weaken black strength.  He believes that AIDS is a government
engineered disease designed to destroy undesirables (implicity, blacks).
Lee made racist caricatures of Jews in his film "Mo' Better Blues".
Those are only a few examples.

The only thing that pisses me off more than straight, unqualified racism
is hypocritical racism.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: Religious Right (was Re: Rush Limbaugh: Victory from
     Defeat)
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 16 Nov 92 21:02:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.162924.1337@news.vanderbilt.edu> John Rickert,
rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu writes:

>   Oh, I get it now.  It took me long enough.  But I think I finally
>caught on.  Religious = religious right.  A public reference to
religion
>is rightwing extremism.  Now I see...

By George, I think he's got it!

Now, repeat after me....

     Feminist = Feminazi
     Environmentalist = Whacko
     Democrat = Liberal
     Liberal = Socialist
     Socialist = Communist

Once you've mastered these rudimentary concepts you will be eligible
to apply for the Atilla the Hun scholorship at the Institute for
Advanced Conservative Studies.

We'll turn you into a Dittohead, yet!

Greg Bradt  aka  ()The Lensman()
(I'll think for *myself*, thank you anyway, Rush!)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: The Environment
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:05:45 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>Did you hear the report on Rush's show yesterday?  It said that a recent 
>study found 10 times as many spotted owl's as the enviro-wacos claimed 
>that there were.

Cite the study please or zip it up.

You cannot consider anything you hear on the Rush Limbaugh show as news
or statements of fact. Most of what you hear is either the opinion of
Rush Limbaugh or the opinion of his callers, a huge majority of which
think like Limbot clones. Very little is news.

Now, he may have been citing a new study I am unfamiliar with but I would
prefer to research it myself rather than taking Rush's word for it, if you
don't mind.

And it wasn't numbers from any "enviro-wacos" which put the Spotted Owl
on the Endangered List. The numbers came from a GOVERNMENT sponsored
study which was PERFORMED by government biologists. Rush just like to
say "enviro-wacos" every chance he gets.

And so what if there are 10 times as many spotted owls as the original
census was? That means the current population is 10% of its original
numbers instead of 5%. (Percentages estimated, but you get my point.)

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington (Alumnus)
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."