HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is RIGHT again
Date: 23 Nov 92 08:50:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1epe7iINNsuc@agate.berkeley.edu> yeomans@luxor.ced.berkeley.edu (Gary Todd Yeomans) writes:
>Rush was right about the UH-ReverUND JACKson-UH hiding in the wings for Clinton and the 
>big pay-off for hiding during the campaign.  Did you people see that they had dinner and
>Clinton went to one of Jackson's services where he called Clinton a "great healer"?
>
>Here it comes, Jackson's going to be named to the Supreme Court or Minister of the Interior
>or something.

Aha you were present at their private meeting ? I am sure that you
are hoping  that Clinton will give Jackson a position within the
cabinet or as a supreme court justice. 
However here we have a president to be who is willing to listen to
several opinioins and views. He has not promised anyone a cabinet
post and unless you can prove differently these rumours are just
typical for Rush followers, insinuation without proof. Agreat
republican tradition...
>
>Did you people see the love-fest with Clinton on Saturday Night Live about the Gays in the 
>Military Skit.  Oh, man, did they lay in on thick.  "The greatest man of our Century..."???
>Please spare me the manure.  This guy is no saviour and I bet he won't even repeal the ban
>on homosexuals in the military.  

Well I guess it's wishful thinking time again for the republicans
and for those who are too bigotted to realize that there is aa role
possible for gays in the military and that it's not hte gays who are
a problem but hte straight peopel who are afraid to be looked upon
as 'sex' objects. The dutch army for once has a very open policy to
gays in the military and this policy has never made the army a worse
army. Of course they have never been involved in any police
actions... But they perform quite well in NATO exercise. In case of
the US army this means it will take some time for the 'guys' to grow
up.
Pim van Meurs
Clinton : The greatest man of our century 
Not only because of lack of oposition...
>
>Todd Yeomans


-- 
Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8628 alt.rush-limbaugh:9745 alt.politics.clinton:17193
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Those Wacky Conservatives! (Analysis)
Date: 17 Nov 92 14:47:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Nov13.223937.1383@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <83324@ut-emx.uucp> zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:
>
>>Conservatives also believe that the government is the least effective
>>way of solving problems; simply put, free enterprise and personal
>>initiative can do better than a bloated bureaucracy any time.
>
>	In other words, let's disband the military and the cops. After
>all, they _are_ government institutions. Being a vigilante is a _much_
>more effective form of law enforcement, right?

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  Does this mean we can save
electricity by not plugging it in?  The fact that the government has some
valuable institutions is no argument in favor of more of it.  Besides, are you
seriously suggesting that the military is not a bloated and inefficient
bureaucracy?  

>
>	And who says corporations can't have bloated bureaucracies?
>Especially those in monopoly positions.

The difference is that, when corporate bureaucracies become expensive and
inefficient, they become unbloated.  Cases in point: IBM, GM.  Government has
no pressures to become efficient and plenty of incentive to bloat even more.


===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"The whole idea of our government is this: If enough people get together and
 act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it."
			  
                                      P.J. O'Rourke - A Parliament of Whores

===============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: THE NEWW AMERICAN REVOLUTION                               D
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 08:02:30 GMT


In a previous article, mhl@spirit.ece.cmu.edu (Mikko H. Lipasti) says:

>In article <1992Nov16.171117.953@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harry Tuttle) writes:
>>
>>BOYCOTT RUSH! BOYCOTT RUSH! BOYCOTT RUSH!
>>
>
>Shouldn't a Rush boycott also include a boycott of this newsgroup?  Please 
>say yes...what a great way to improve the signal-to-(liberal-whiner)-noise
>ratio of this group!!!
>

Not at all.  This Newsgroup does not put money in Flush Limbowel's pocket.

>==========================================================================
>
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   HATE IS NOT A  *         
*                    Kelley L. Miller  / /  \  FAMILY VALUE   *            
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  / /____\                *  
*     GIGO: Gospel In--Garbage Out   /______\                 *
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Those Wacky Conservatives! (Analysis)
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:16:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.144723.24734@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.223937.1383@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
: In article <83324@ut-emx.uucp> zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle) writes:

: >Conservatives also believe that the government is the least effective
: >way of solving problems; simply put, free enterprise and personal
: >initiative can do better than a bloated bureaucracy any time.

: 	In other words, let's disband the military and the cops. After
: all, they _are_ government institutions. Being a vigilante is a _much_
: more effective form of law enforcement, right?

>Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  Does this mean we can save
>electricity by not plugging it in?

	That would work, won't it? :-)

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore)
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:00:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.222742.13500@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rchabot@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert J Chabot) writes:
>Please illustrate other examples of conservatives pointing fingers at fictional
>characters.  The statement aappears to be a "generalization."

Quayle's constant harping about Hollywood's "cultural elite"
is probably the best example.

>1) Just *how* did the 50s "attempt to force" women into the kitchen???  The 50s
>were a period of relative prosperity, esp. in the U.S.  If women were
>returning to "the kitchen", it was in response to the *economic* context--not
>to the "50s attempt to force women into the kitchen."

It was both.  During the Second World War women went to work
jobs that had traditionally been reserved for men.  When the
war ended and the soldiers returned, women were forced out
of their jobs so that the men could have them back.
--
           Hate is not a family value.  Boycott Colorado

       Melinda Shore - Cornell Theory Center - shore@tc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 16:40:58 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.054513.1@deep-13.gizmo.com> maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com writes:
>In article <BxoBI8.39r@news.iastate.edu>, barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>    All of this leads me to the solid conclusion that conservatives
>> are the real guarantors of First Amendment Rights in the U.S.  Liberals
>> support other people's First Amendment rights only when the speach
>> agrees with them.  Liberals have concocted a large number of terms
>> like "political correctness" in attempt to stifle the First Amendment
>> rights of people with opposing viewpoints.  Political incorrectness
>> **IS** fully protected by the First Amendment, but liberals refuse to
>> accept this.  Conservatives, however, always respect the First Amendment
>> rights of everybody, regardless of opposing viewpoints.
>
>Are you a freshman or just stupid?
>
>wondering.max

Mr. Barett is indeed correct and once again we are shown the need to result
to insult rather than debate the subject at hand.  Calling this poster
stupid is in the first instance inane in that he obviously has figured out
how to post in the first place and that he is by reason of his participation on
the internet, obviously computer literate.  Come gang if you have no argument
against his positions lets leave the ad hominem abuse alone shall we?


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Why Rush is a Jack Ass
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 01:00:23 GMT

In article <Nov18.174717.15232@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> be231642@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Bret Egan) writes:
>First of all he is farther right than Adolf Hitler.


The idiocy of this statement speaks for itself.

>His audiance consists of old people who up till two weeks ago still had a 
     ^^^^^^^^
        
     >
>Rush denies that their is anything wrong with OUR environment.  That is not only
>being ultra conservative, but also being ignorent.  
					  ^^^^^^^^

Yup. You got it. HE sure is IGNORENT.


>other way" EPA enforcement of Pollution laws.
>The hole in the ozone EXISTS!  
>
>Rush should know (or maybe he doesn't) that as a country WE elect our president,
>not Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals.  We stood behind
>Reagan/Bush as trickle down increased our Debt.  We should now stand behind Bill
>Clinton as he approaches the office that we elected him to.  Meanwhile Rush can
>continue his attacks on our President for the next four years.  

Yeah. We really stood firmly behind Presidents Reagan and Bush. Not once
did the angellic and cooperative liberal establishment criticise 
the programmes offered. Take your halcyon and be a nice boy.




--
David Leung-tak
"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
"A day without sun is night."
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gay Marriages?
Date: 22 Nov 1992 21:30 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <1992Nov19.214224.14510@photon.com>, jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman) writes...

|Since heterosexual marriages require a license with all the appropriate
|state-mandated tests, and gay marriages don't, domestic partner
|arrangements discriminate against heterosexuals and thus violate
|laws which forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.
| 
|Joe Naiman

	We would assume that in the name of equality, that domestic
partnership laws apply to couples of any gender.  

	We furthermore would assume that if a law were made only for
members of the same sex, that it would still apply towards heterosexuals
as well as to homosexuals.

	Giving two men (or women) the right to marry each other is a right 
granted to any two men (or women), regardless of their sexual orientation.

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /    
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__   


rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9028 alt.rush-limbaugh:10257 alt.politics.bush:14006
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Date: 21 Nov 92 05:59:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Nov21.011157.26525@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>I remember the broo-ha-ha that surround the racial integration of the Armed
>Services...   Lotta good-ol-boys were sure that "niggras" weren't capable
>of serving next to "white folx".  Predicted that this was the biggest
>screw up since the abolition of slavery.   Some of them were pretty subtle
>about it too... didn't talk about the ability of the black servicemen - they
>talked about the ability of the white majority to trust and serve with the
>blacks.   "Nothin against dem black folx... it's just that it would prevent
>the military from working together right."
>
>Well, we've seen how our integrated service did in recent action.
>How much better could you have expected them to perform in Desert Storm
>if it had been all white and all black companies?  I doubt the army
>has been hurt through racial integration, in spite of the old racisms
>expressed in the mid '50s.
>
>Seems like I hear a lot of this tired old bullshit nowadays...   some people
>say "Gays can't cut it".  Others say "It would decrease the efficiency of
>the hetero guys if they had to run from foxhole to foxhole with one hand
>covering thier tuckus".   But it's still the same old song...   hate the one
>who is different so as to make yourself feel better.
>
There is one very, extremely big difference between the two cases.  Blacks, 
do not, as a function of their being black, wish to have sex with men.  
Homosexuals, however, generally wish to have sex with other men.  In the 
military, troops are forced, without their consent, to be in quite, if I 
may state it in a delicate way, compromising situations.  And before you 
ask, no I do not think that homosexuals have any different sex drive than 
heterosexuals, but...answer this question: How would the normal, heterosexual 
male react to a shower full of nude women?  I expect that the normal, 
homosexual male would react in the same manner in response to a shower full 
of nude men.  I have yet to hear any homosexuals-in-the-army advocate address 
this point.

Ted



>
>
>
-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: This is OUTRAGEOUS...
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 15:22:07 GMT

cse0115@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>costin@cs.mcgill.ca (Costin RIZAN) writes:
>>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. A DRAFT DODGER "honoring" war
>>>veterans with his presence? 

[snip]

>>      Just because he didn't agree with the war it doesn't mean that
>> he doesn't respect and honor those that fought and died iin it.

[snip]

>   Perhaps if we had a mandatory 2 year enlistment, many people would 
>feel differently about this after their enlistment.

    I'm sure that you're correct. If our government demanded a 2 year 
involuntary conscription in the armed forces *I* would certainly feel 
differently about it. I think that one of the greatest strengths of our 
form of government is that so many our citizens are willing to volunteer 
to defend it.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: hagerjd@carina.unm.edu (John D. Hager)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch - Day 17
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:38:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <41390@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.050701.282@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rfa@Turing.ORG (Robert F. Alexander) writes:
>>In article <41352@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>>      (all kinds of stuff deleted)
>
>No I don't think so. Rush requires his 'followers' to stop thinking
>for themselves since he will tell you the TRUTH. I guess that's what
>makes the difference between Rush followers and people who are
>willing to thin for themselves. Rush makes people feel good when
>they need it. Nothing bad about that but it gets scary when those
>same people start worshipping him like a 'God'. Come on people Rush
>is an entertainer who uses sentiments present in the right wing, who
>are in need for some comfoty, to bash liberals using far fetched
>arguments. Sure when you believe Rush you might think he is the
>greatest thing since sliced bread. But he is just someone who is
>imitating conservatives to make a few bucks.
>>
So you're saying that Rush is just a greedy liberal?  If he is imitating
conservatives, then he must not be a real conservative.  I am a conservative
that thinks for myself, and I love Rush!  He is to me, a breath of fresh
air.  I am tired of being bombarded day in and day out by the extremely
slanted liberal media trying to tell me what I think.  Rush says that his
show is only about one thing; what HE thinks.  He just happens to think
the way a lot of Americans think and that is part of the reason for his
success.  If you ask me, the media in general treats people as if they are
stupid and don't know how to think for themselves.  They treat me that
way.  It's part of Rush's satire when he says to stop worrying about any-
thing and let him do everything and he'll tell us what to think about it.
He is doing a parody of what the liberal media does to us.

>Pim van Meurs
>Physical Oceanographer not marine Biologist
>
John D. Hager
Albuquerque, NM
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8749 alt.politics.clinton:17392
From: ktitus@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: <None>
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:42:24 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <1992Nov14.011059.7058@cs.mcgill.ca>, costin@cs.mcgill.ca (Costin RIZAN) writes:
> In article <1992Nov12.201653.20426@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>		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. 
> 	Just because he didn't agree with the war it doesn't mean that
> he doesn't respect and honor those that fought and died iin it.
> 
> 	He's never demonstrated against the soldiers themselves to my
> knowledge. Just against the politicians that sent those people to die
> in a dubious war. 
> 
> 

Yeah, right. 

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:20:33 GMT

In <1992Nov18.020350.12683@netcom.com> kc@netcom.com (Dameon D. Welch) writes:

>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <69483@cup.portal.com> sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>
>>>21. Abortion is wrong.                                             
>>
>>Single mothers living in poverty with six starving children is wrong.

>And how did the mother get this way, might I ask? She most likely had
>sex with someone without using birth control. It's *HER* fault. When
>will you Liberals pull your head out of your ass and realize that
>people can and should be responsible for their own actions?

When will you Conservatives stop the flow of vocal diarrhea and realize that
success isn't always a matter of responsibility, but of who has power and how
they use or abuse that power?

>>>25. Love is the only emotion that cannot be controlled.            
>>
>>Limbaugh seems to control it well enough.

>How do you figure this?

His show is a stream of vitriol against feminism, liberalism, radicalism,
Democrats, environmentalism, non-Christians, and anything else he doesn't
understand.  He demonstrates no love toward anyone but himself.

>>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.               
>>
>>Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.

>But most of them preached facist left-winged ideas.

HELLO!  Remember the coup?  Remember Gorbachev getting kidnapped?  Remember
the breakup of the Soviet Union?  It happened because a RIGHT-wing faction
of the government, that is, the old guard of Brezhnev/Lenin ideology,
opposed Gorbachev's progressivism and willingness to allow state's rights.
Calling Soviet government fascist left-wingers is way too convenient.

>>>33. There will always be poor people.                              
>>
>>Only as long as there is capitalism.

>I agree with what Rush says because there are always lazy people who
>expect people to do things for them, which is where you leftists
>derive your power and mandate from. Capitalism allows people to make
>their own mark on their own. 

Liberals derive their support from those who realize that the Horatio Alger
"bootstrap" myth has little if any basis in reality.  Poor people are not
lazy, they are disadvantaged.  Minorities are not lazy, they are disadvantaged.
The power base is the property of rich, white, conservative corporations and
politicians.  Those who are not in power are kept there, victimized by a
vicious Catch-22 (won't hire you because you're not qualified, you're not
qualified because we won't hire you).  The disadvantaged are greater in number
than ever before: today the top 4 percent of the country earn as much as the
bottom 50 percent of the country.  Liberalism is designed, among other things,
to give power to those who are denied access to power, so that they are able
to make their own mark on their own.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.limbaugh