HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley)
Subject: Re: A fine opporitunity for flaming liberal flameage
Organization: Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 07:19:46 GMT

In article <mykes.0c62@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.223843.4155@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:
>> In article 0c0t@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG, mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>> >In article <BsKDB7.GB5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>> >> >In article 28272@cs.rose-hulman.edu, pearsodc@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (D) writes:
>> >> >How about all the attention paid to David DuKKKe?  The chief spokesman for
>> >> >conservative causes was given plenty of coverage, virtually all of it
>> >> >unbiased and even-handed.
>> >> This statement is particularly amazing.  All conservatives I know think
>> >> Duke is a racist.  He got few votes running against a real conservative
>> >> (Pat Buchanan).  I also doubt that it was unbiased but I'm not sure how
>> >> to tell because any article mentioning (as many or more likely most did)
>> >> his KKK background could be construed as factual or biased.
>> >I think Duke is a racist, too.  His message was clearly designed to appeal
>> >to the far right wing - smaller govt., less interference in business, etc.
>> >And he chose to run as a republican.  Given a less checkered background
>> >and being not-a-racist, he could have gone far.  But he is a racist, and
>> >everyone knows it and nobody gave him any support - except for those who
>> >voted against the criminals in the dem party in La. who he ran against.
>>
>> The point I was trying to make is that conservatives are not particularly
>> known for condemning racism.
>
>That's a sweeping and false statement.  Bush fired two of his campaign people
>in 1988 for racist comments.  Bush hired a MINORITY WOMAN (double whammy) to
>be Surgeon General, a woman to be Secy. of Education (Liz Dole), and a black
>man to be Secy. oF Health & Human Services (Louis Sullivan).  Dole was Secy.
>of Education under Reagan, too.  Bush went as far as he could to throw support
>against Duke without actually supporting the crook who was running as democrat.
>
>I am as conservative as you will find, and I condemn racism.  Big time.

Mike, I'm with you 100%.  I condemn racism as much as a human can.  I am
(by other's labels which I accept) a conservative as you are.  I have
lived my life in accordance with that principle.  So has George Bush.
One other wonderful example that might be noted is Ms. C. Rice who is a
black woman who has spent the last two nights battling for the President
on McNeil/Lehrer against a white male who represents Clinton.

Tim

P.S. She left him in the dust gasping for breath.
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% for health
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:37:20 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Aug12.194433.29027@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:

>One other point I left out before regarding Japan, the income tax rates
>in both Japan and Germany are considerably above 50% (closer to 70%)
>which certainly make's the US tax rate of 31% look very cheap.

 What is Japan's State Tax, Sales Tax, Estate Tax, Commodities Tax etc. etc.
 The US total tax rate is over 40 percent. My guess is that the total
 theft performed by the government exceeds 50 percent of the semi-free
 markets GNP. When you add in buissness taxes and regulation expenses.
 Our government tries to hide its crimes.

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4510 alt.rush-limbaugh:3635
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker)
Subject: Re: My religion is great, yours is Bullshit
Organization: ILS
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 15:50:58 GMT

In article <BswBF5.J44@acsu.buffalo.edu>, mjb@acsu.buffalo.edu (Matthew J.
Bernhardt) writes:
> 
> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
> 
> 
> >	I was interested to hear Rush poking fun at an Ill. state prisoner
> >who is suing the state, claiming that the state has denied his him religous
> >freedom. I would expect Rush to be a staunch defender of the indivuals
> >rights, claiming family values and all that. After all, if family values
> >and a christian education can save the country, then religion should 
> >certainly be favorable in a prison environment.
> 
> >	I guess family values only includes the cool religions.
> 
> 	Rush had stated on previous occasions that he believes that religion
> must subordinate itself to the laws of the state. (The case of the Indians and peyote (sp?) comes to mind.)  

Would Rush say the people who try to stop the operations of abortion
clinics for religious reasons are in the wrong then?

Then again who cares what this fat, rude, bitter right-wing insecure load
mouth has to say,  what do you
think?
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Date: 19 Aug 92 08:21:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Aug19.042314.2204@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) writes:
>pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:

>>Might it be that Buchanan's speech was full of attacks against
>>homosexuals, feminists, illegal immigrants, people of color, women
>>in battle... You name it... Personal attacks on Hilary Clinton... I

>It is precisely because Pat Buchanan went on the attack that it was a
>great speech. Buchanan was never more right than when he said that there
>is a cultural and religious war being waged in this nation. People these
>days do not wish to hear such unpleasant statements that offend the ears,
>and as a result dismiss them as "hateful" or "divisive." Dismissing the
>issues that so divide the two parties and this nation as trivial or overblown
>will never diminish their importance. Once again, too much of this nation
>wishes to close their eyes, and hopes that somehow these divisions will
>simply fade away. They will not. History has taught that problems that are
>ignored only grow worse. Buchanan did much last night to alert people as
>to what is really going on in America in 1992.

Sure there is a religious war going on in the USA. Exactly my point.
Pat Buchanan is using his religiosu convictions to tell others how
to behave and if they don't they are no true americans. Freedom is
america, america is freedom he said. But what kind of freedom is
this may I ask. A freedom limited by religious narrowmindedness, gay
bashing, anti feminism, rascism ? Sure there is a war going on out
there, it's a war trying to eliminate the same rights of freedom to
anyone who thinks differently, behaves differently, looks
differently. Differently measured by what is believed the Bible
wants us to be. But isn't any interpretation of the word of god a
hoax when it limits the freedom of others, when it stirs up hate
against race, sexual preference ? How can people use the bible to
defend their viscious attacks on others ? Love and understanding for
others is more important than judging them. In their own words,
judgement should be left to only one person. Divisions are stirred
up not dimished by Pat Buchana's attacks.
Sincerely
Pim van Meurs



-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: paul@pj.tmc.edu (Thorongil)
Subject: Re: Bush's Marital Problems
Organization: Mississippi State University ERC
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:51:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.232722.15335@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>
>Lastly, I don't care one hoot about womanizing, homosexual encounters, or
>illegitimate kids.  I care about a man's honor and his word.  So far, Bush
>is the only one who has gone back on his word with respect to a presidential
>campaign promise.
>
>====================================================================
>Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187

Well you are right on one thing, Bush did go back on a presidential
campaign promise.  But you say you care about a man's honor and his
word and don't care about his womanizing?  What about the marriage 
vow?  If he commits adultry has he not just gone back on his word to
his wife?  Does that not reflect on his honor?  If he can't keep his
word to his wife, how will he keep his word to you?  ( `He' being
generic, not necessarily Bush, Clinton, or even a man ... it could
just as easily be the pronoun she. )  Your reasoning does not stand
up.

       ___   ____
       /__)   /          ^  __| ^ |\ /|  ______________________________
      / .  \_/ .        / \(__|/ \| V | (__   paul@erc.msstate.edu
    _______________________________________)
      Engineering Research Center For Computational Field Simulation
 

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4740 alt.rush-limbaugh:3832
From: orkillme@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: My religion is great, yours is Bullshit
Date: 21 Aug 92 22:03:03 GMT
Reply-To: orkillme
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Florida  (ufl.edu)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4

>as part of my religion I yell "fire" in theaters.  This is obviously 


It is part of my religion to yell "movie" in a crowded fire house. 

Peter -><-
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Date: 20 Aug 92 00:40:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1814@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:

> Buchanan went way out to the right on social issues. His protectionism is
>a minority view within conservatives in general. He was probably using this
>as an opportunity to reshape what the american perception of the extremist
>right position is. This opportunity was handed to him on a silver platter
>via the democratic supposed slide to the middle. The entire country has 
>shifted to the right whether you like it or not. It is possible that he was
>trying to offset Marios leftist speech.
>
> Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.

It might be a minority view but it was given prime timne coverage.
Even the republican plank on abortion for instance is
ultra-conservative. The whole conference seems to be leaning to the
ultra right. MAybe that's a good trend because the majority of the
voters are quite moderate and might decide to go for the democrats
who have shifted considerably towards the center on certain issues.
I don't think the whole country has slided to the right. On the
contrary I would say the whole country has stayed the same with both
ultra right and ultra left shifting even further out. Too bad ultr
right is given so much coverage. MArio Cuomo did not try to relate
freedom in america to conformism to the elite. Personal freedom is a
big issue n this country and Pat has just shown us how limited his
ideas on freedom really are.

Pim van Meurs
-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 20:39:40 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1992Aug18.183422.12893@midway.uchicago.edu> @cicero.spc.uchicago.edu () writes:
>In article <1812@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug17.230209.6397@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>
>>->You see, your solution is arbitrary.  Arbitrary laws cause nothing but
>>->dissent.  Would you be happy if the line were arbitrarily drawn at six
>>->months?  8 months?  I venture to guess not.  So why should someone who
>>->does not believe _human_ life begins at conception be happy with your
>>->definition?  The only real solution is a solid definition of when life
>>->begins, that can be challenged based on science, not dogma.
>>
>
>I'm sorry to butt in here without having read the entire discussion, but don't
>we often draw arbitrary lines to advance some greater social need?  For
>example, we set 18 as the legal voting age despite the fact that many
>14 year olds could probably make intellegent voting decisions, while some
>40 year olds might not.  We do the same thing with the drinking age don't
>we?  The driving age, etc.?
>
Just because we do it doesn't make it a Good Thing.  A more objective voting
age law might involve some sort of test, although life experience tends to
temper our decisions.  With the drinking age, justification could be based
on evidence of greater physical harm to people under 18.  Perhaps a test
could be devised to determine how much harm alcohol does to an individual.
Of course, administering those tests would be expensive, and the cost to
those who "suffer" under such arbitrary boundaries is low compared to the
cost to society to make things 'fair'.  This brings up the issue of relative
importance - so what if I don't get to vote 'till I'm 18. Or legally drink.
However, people's lives depend on the abortion issue and where the line
gets drawn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
                   ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marcel.Bendshadler@f69.n105.z1.therose.pdx.com (Marcel Bendshadler)
Sender: postmaster@therose.pdx.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: KENNEDY SONGS....PLEEEEEEEZE!!!
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 09:43:00 -0700

 > I've got the lyrics to most of the songs somewhere in the summaries,
 > but haven't gotten around to finding them and collecting them. Maybe
 > this week. However, I do have the following two handy:


Not only the Kennedy Songs, but how about "The Limbaugh Cannonball" and some of
the other songs, like that Barbershop Quartet rendition that I only heard once,
so I can't remember the words?  If you've got all the words to these things, I
would LOVE to have them!

Please, either post them here or send them directly to me at:

Marcel_Bendshadler@f69.n105.z1.fidonet.org

Thanks!

Disclaimer:  This poster is executing everything he does flawlessly... zero
mistakes.  The views expressed by this poster make more sense than anything
that has been said by anyone in this forum at anytime about anything.  These
aren't the views of the Lemmeral-Left, but they're the views of the majority.

L8r,
M.B.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wayne@mathematik.uni-Bremen.de (Wayne Tvedt)
Subject: Re: Drugs (was Re: Liberatarians on Limbaugh.)
Organization: 250 Million Pet Rocks
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 20:37:41 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4

padutton@wpi.WPI.EDU (Peter Alan Dutton) writes:
>...
>Nobody has presented any evidence that the legalization of any 
>currently illicit drug would NOT cause a vast increase in the
>number of users of that drug.
>...

	Article in Der Spiegel, "Evil out of the can?", this week:

	"At the beginning of the Liberalization in the 70s 10 percent
of the 18 year-old Netherlanders had had experience with Cannabis;
since then, the number of experimenters and regular users in the same
age group has gone down to two percent."


--
Wayne Tvedt                                     wayne@mathematik.uni-bremen.de
                                              ...fold globally, expand locally
From: doel@ausable.crd.ge.com (Michael Doel)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Birth control & R. Catholic dogma
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:16:58 GMT
Reply-To: doel@crd.ge.com
Organization: GE Research & Development

In article <92226.065030MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET (Marty Helgesen) writes:

> Sexual intercourse has three legitimate purposes, procreation, the
> expression of mutual love of a husband and wife, and  satisfying the
> natural sexual appetites of a husband and wife.  (The third is fre-
> quently taken for granted and not mentioned.)  They should not be
> separated by interfering with the act.  That is why contraception is
> wrong.

I'm a bit confused.  I interpret your statement to mean that coitus
should only happen when all three of the legitimate purposes are
present.  How is it that using biological timing to "separated the
purposes" (aka, Natural Family Planning) is ok, but using a pill is not?
I see no real differences between the two.


> Someone mentioned the rhythm method.  That is an obsolete method.
> There are new techniques of Natural Family Planning (NFP) that are as
> effective as The Pill, without any of The Pill's numerous, serious
> side effects.

What methods of birth control fall under the Natural Family Planning
umbrella besides the rhythm method?


> In contraception the husband and wife use, or misuse, their sexual
> capabilities in such a way as to prevent conception. In NFP they
> refrain from using their sexual capabilities during the relatively
> few days a month the wife is fertile. Couples are not obligated to
> have intercourse every day of their lives, and there is nothing wrong
> with taking fertility into account when deciding when to have inter-
> course.   A couple using NFP does not interfere with the completeness
> of any act of intercourse.

This doesn't make any sense.  In NFP, couples time their sexual activity
to prevent conception.  If this "does not interfere with the completeness
of any act of intercourse" then attempts at procreation are not required
for every act of intercourse (since couples practicing NFP are clearly
not trying to procreate).  In this case, how is taking a pill any different?

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Doel				<doel@crd.ge.com>
P.O. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301			(518) 387-6203

"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat
 and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: shou1@cicero.spc.uchicago.edu (Roger Shouse)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:45:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC

In article <1992Aug20.151609.23121@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.135039.2443@athena.cs.uga.edu>, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>
>|> Let us settle this once and for all.  I am no Clinton supporter, but did
>|> Hillary really liken marriage to slavery?
>
>	In law school, Hillary Clinton drafted some papers discussing
>the legal aspects of being a housewife, and likened it to the legal
>position of being a slave, because of the financial dependance
>involved. She also did a paper on the rights of children to sue their
>parents, and presumably concluded that under current law, it's a
>legitimate scenerio (I haven't read it, but given that Pat said she
>"supported" it ..).
>
>	All of these were theoretical arguments for law class.
>Claiming these were position papers is streching it, to say the least.
>
>-- 

This is at least partially incorrect.  At least one of Mrs. Clinton's papers was
published in a 1982 issue of the Harvard Education Review.  
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: @cicero.spc.uchicago.edu ()
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Organization: U of Chicago, SSPPCC
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:34:22 GMT

In article <1812@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.230209.6397@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>
>->You see, your solution is arbitrary.  Arbitrary laws cause nothing but
>->dissent.  Would you be happy if the line were arbitrarily drawn at six
>->months?  8 months?  I venture to guess not.  So why should someone who
>->does not believe _human_ life begins at conception be happy with your
>->definition?  The only real solution is a solid definition of when life
>->begins, that can be challenged based on science, not dogma.
>

I'm sorry to butt in here without having read the entire discussion, but don't
we often draw arbitrary lines to advance some greater social need?  For
example, we set 18 as the legal voting age despite the fact that many
14 year olds could probably make intellegent voting decisions, while some
40 year olds might not.  We do the same thing with the drinking age don't
we?  The driving age, etc.?
From: hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker)
Subject: Re: My religion is great, yours is Bullshit
Organization: ILS
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:40:07 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.223715.13411@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike
Best) writes:
> 

> reason are not breaking the law but when their actions break a law they are
> arrested.  However, the arrest has nothing to do with the principles behind 
> those doing the protesting - they simply {loitered, vandalized, etc}
> 
The question is do they have a right to break the law,  which they do when
they violate a restraining order,  because of their principles? 



> Hooray for liberal intellectualism!  Have you tried your hand in the group
> alt.politics.correct?

Assumption, assumption assumptions.  You  have a label for everyone.  I
think Rush is a fat piece of worthless shit so therefore you know for
certain that I am a "Liberal Intellectual".  You don't know anything about
my voting, you don't know anything about my party membership.  You just
assumed that your little model of the world was correct.

As for your politics correct;  I have personally suffered under the
persecution of politically correct shit heads when I was in College.  Once
again you assumed that I must be PC because I don;t like Rush. I hate PC
power pusher more then almost any other group in the country right.  But
you know that I must be PC because I don't like Rush.   

Clue for the clueless;  people will find Rush offensive who are not either
Radical Liberals, Gays or PC lovers.
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Is Bush Conservative?  Ask Michael Kinsley
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:18:39 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

According to Michael Kinsley (you may know him as the guy who faced off
against Pat Buchanon on crossfire, and he surely is a liberal),
Bush is by no means a conservative - his actions lean toward moderate
or even liberal.  I don't have the exact quote but if I had the time
I could find it.  The point is that overall, considering his action on
the quota bill, raising taxes, and bending over for Tom Foley, it is
difficult to see conservative intentions.  I think he may be a clear
vessel which takes the color of whatever gets put into him.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh