HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 25 Jan 1993 08:34:06 -0800
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <C1AB5y.MMG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:

>Mr. Margolis, please answer this hypothetical question for me:

Can I play?

>Mr. Idiot and Ms. Irresponsible are walking through a park and see a
>strange, big red button on a tree.  On a sign next to this button can be read
>the following:

>  "Attention: Pressing this button will result in brief, but exquisite,
>   pleasure for a man and a woman together.
>
>   Warning: Pressing this button ALSO has a 1% chance of teleporting
>   Bill Clinton into the woman's womb, where he will stay for 9 months.
>   After 9 months, he will then leave her womb, with an additional
>   .1% chance of causing her death in doing so."
>
>Mr. Idiot and Ms. Irresponsible were educated before the liberals took
>over our education system, and can therefore read.  They READ this sign,
>and choose to press the button.  Bill Clinton is knocked out (read: is
>no longer sentient), shrunk down, and implanted in Ms. Irresponsible's
>womb.  Has Bill Clinton violated anyone's rights?  

Is Bill Clinton going to grow?  Is Bill Clinton going to use any of Ms.
Irresponsible's functioning bodily systems?  Is Bill Clinton going to
shut down any of Ms. Irresponsible's functioning bodily systems?

The answer is yes.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: Supposed Bentsen Quote
Keywords: 4 names
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:44:03 GMT

In article <nate.1122@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>Today Rush played (twice at least) what he claimed was the recorded voice
>>of an interview with Senator Lloyd Bentsen, now Secretary of the Treasury.
>>In this supposed recording, a voice said something on the order of
>>"Those middle class voters will fall for a lie about tax cuts every time."


>    Relax, Tom, it was just Rush being his typical substantive self -
>making up things that he wished his opponents had said and then making
>recordings of a caller who sound vaguely like Bentsen saying the things
>Rush made up.

Well, Nate, you're usually right on target with objectivity, but here, I
have to wonder if you're pulling a "Rush" on us.   Your statement, above,
sounds like fact--that you _know_ something about it.  But are you just
tossing it out there to see who will ask?  :)

I didn't hear that RL show, so this is the first I've heard of my former
senator's "quote" (public confession) But, do _you_ know the real facts
on this thing?   I don't know who is doing it, but I feel my leg being
pulled.

David

>--
>Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
>Psychology Department               Indiana University
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: AIDS Question:
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:46:20 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester
Keywords: AIDS

In article <C17yKL.K1q@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
|> 
|> I just heard something which I would like to hear more about:
|> 
|> Jesse Helms (AGGH!! scream the liberals) quoted the Center for Disease
|> Control today as stating that the average male AIDS patient has had
|> more than FIVE HUNDRED sexual partners.  Can anyone refute or confirm 
|> this?  If in fact the CDC has come to this conclusion legitimately
|> I would be pretty startled.

It's either:

    1.  Jesse Helms being the bigot that he is, or
    2.  Jesse Helms misinterpreting (intentionally or unintentionally
        a report that says 500 sexual partners, if you count everyone
        that has had sex with this person's partners)


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: "Representative"  government?  HEE HEE HEE!!
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 14:30:08 PST

   This according to a report I just heard on KGO Radio (810 AM--San Fran-
cisco):

   The office of Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) has reported that they
have received about 200 phone calls regarding the confirmation hearings of
Attorney General nominee Zoe Baird--all of them negative.  You heard that--
ALL against Ms. Baird.  Senator Metzenbaum plans to support her anyway.

   So much for representative government.

   Ohio residents, you're the ones who keep returning this clown.


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
This .sig meets Greenpeace standards by using over 25% recycled pixels.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,uiuc.politics,alt.politics.elections
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Campaign funding a joke
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:09:59 GMT

mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:

>I've heard of a republic, for sure.  But why do we need a republic?  Or 
>more appropriately, why DID we need a republic?  Let's send paul revere
>from town to town and get him to poll everyone on everything, right?
>More like it is that we do NOW have the ability to vote on public agenda
>every year and get complete vote tally within a few hours...

   Just because we have the technical capacity does not mean it is a good
idea.  The public gets far too rapped up and emotional over issues, and
a more delibrate process is necessary.
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Supposed Bentsen Quote
Keywords: 4 names
Date: 27 Jan 93 14:14:00 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:

>Today Rush played (twice at least) what he claimed was the recorded voice
>of an interview with Senator Lloyd Bentsen, now Secretary of the Treasury.
>In this supposed recording, a voice said something on the order of
>"Those middle class voters will fall for a lie about tax cuts every time."

>Was this really Bentsen's voice, and did he really say this to mean
>this, or was it taken out of context?  (i.e. Did Bentsen really
>say something like "[The republicans believe that] those middle class..."?)

>Prepared to be aghast, but I've been lied to with misquotes before...

No, that's a ringer who happened to call in one day and Rush noticed that
he sounded exactly like Bentsen.  Rush asked him to repeat several silly
comments on the air so he could have some sound bites to use later.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.startrek.misc,alt.folklore.urban
From: jim@specialix.com (Jim Maurer)
Subject: Re: Blacks on Star Trek 
Organization: Specialix Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:24:42 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>In article <C1H2u8.Cu9@ns1.nodak.edu>, green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>>And the best part is they all achieved their success as individuals.
>>There was no government program to "help" them.

>Oh yeah?  What do you think Starfleet Academy is?  You don't think that
>they don't have quotas?  What about Gene Roddenberry's original memo
>requiring that 40% of the crew of the Enterprise be women?  Or that
>William Shatner's wife played the chief nurse?  Is that nepotism, or
>what?

The actress who played Nurse Chapel was Majel Barrett, and she was
Gene Roddenberry's wife, *not* William Shatner's.  And I believe
they got married after she got the part.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 15:10:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.161725.24748@advtech.uswest.com>, steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes...
>> = (John Townsend) writes:
> 
>>The more interesting question right now is that, since Clinton was fully aware
>>of Baird's hypocritical disregard for the law, but decided it was OK and
>>nominated her anyway, what does that say about his own ethics and respect for
>>the law?  Should he resign too?  It's only the second day of his presidency,
>>and people are already asking "How much did Clinton know?"
> 
>No they're not.  The Republican whiners, the poorest damn losers I've
>ever seen, are asking stupid questions like this.  I truly could care
>less.  Why?  Because this is the first Cabinet nomination in this
>century to be voluntarily withdrawn.  Unlike John Tower the drunk being
>defended through a bitter rejection vote by Congress, Clinton felt the
>will of the people and acted immediately.
> 
>Besides, Bush violated the law in Iran-Gate (at the very least, lying to
>Congress), yet he took office.  He actually BROKE THE LAW HIMSELF.
> 
>Whaddya think of that, John?


*I* think you are sadly misinformed.  Bush never testified to Congress about
Iran-Contra, in fact I don't think he's ever testified under oath about it to
anyone.


Dave

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns,alt.religion.computers,alt.peeves
From: ddg@cci632.cci.com (D. Dale Gulledge)
Subject: Re: Gee, i don't Know...
Organization: [Computer Consoles, Inc., Rochester, NY
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:11:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.225416.29672@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>ObPeeves: Housemates who will not allow one to
>put Bouncing Betty's in the Bushes.... 

I agree with your housemates.  They're murder on the bushes.  Landscaping can
get rather expensive.  You should consider less destructive methods of
eliminating pests.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Everything stated above is the opinion of the author, does not reflect the |
| the policies or opinions of Northern Telecom, Inc., and could hardly be    |
| taken seriously anyway.						     |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| D. Dale Gulledge, Software Engineer, ddg@cci.com | #include <WittyQuote.h> |
| Northern Telecom, Network Applications Systems   |			     |
| 97 Humboldt St., Rochester, NY  14609		   |			     |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------------------+


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael J. Maggio)
Subject: Radio Station information
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:51:32 GMT
Keywords: radio eib Limbaugh

I live on the U of Illinois campus, 160 miles south of Chicago.
I can hear Rush on the radio at times on a Chicago station but at
crucial times, like yesterday, the weather was curmmy so I was hardly able
to hear him.  My question is this: Is there a station much closer to
Champaign-Urbana area that carries Rush's radio show? If so what is it and 
at what time(s)? I would appreciate any info greatly on this subject because
"A day without Rush is like a day without sun."

Either email me or post the answer here if you do... 

Thanks in advance,

--MJM
mmaggio@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu

MEGA DITTOS!

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Government and religious freedoms
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 12:37:04 PST

   Here's an observation I've made several times, and I direct it toward those
who oppose private school vouchers while favoring federally funded abortion.
I have yet to receive a reply or justification for this position.  I don't mean
to be confrontational (a net.first?), but maybe there's something I'm missing
in my assessment.  If there is, I'd like to hear it.

   One of the primary arguments against vouchers for private schools, its de-
tactors claim, is that it will "dissolve the wall between church and state";
that is, they claim that government spending of even one penny on anything
which even indirectly promotes religious activity is in violation of the First
Amendment.  As I understand it, private vouchers would not discriminate against
anyone.  If you wanted a religious education--be it Buddhist, Catholic,
Protestant, Hindu or Muslim--you were free to exercise your religious beliefs.
And, if you wanted a non-religious (or even atheist) education for your
children, that would be allowed too.  The point here is that NO ONE is being
coerced to practice or accept a religion they don't approve of--and NO ONE is
being forced to send their children to a religious school at all.

   Well, if THAT is unconstitutional, then what about government forcing many
people to support (through their tax dollars) something their religion
forbids?  Say what you will about the Buchanans, the Robertsons and the
Falwells.  Whether we like it or not, they still have the same religious free-
doms that we all do.  And if you are a fundamentalist Christian, forcing you
to support abortion (through your taxes) is a violation of religious freedoms
and is therefore unconstitutional.  Yet somehow, the same people who dislike
the idea behind private vouchers are usually the same ones behind federally
funded abortion.  When based on the "religious freedom" argument, these two
positions seem incredibly inconsistent.

   That all suggests to me the following philosophy:  "I'm against letting
people decide what religious education (if any) their own children will
receive--even though they could choose ANY religion and none would be actually
established.  I also favor forcing people who disapprove of abortion for
religious reasons to support it anyway."  Is this really religious freedom?

   I'm not looking for a flame war.  If there's a piece of the puzzle which I
have neglected to put into place, I'd like to have that.  Maybe with a little
more input, such a position won't seem so morally indefensible.

   Just for the record:  I favor vouchers for private schools, and I'm also
in favor of keeping abortion safe and legal--but I don't want the government
to fund it.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
This .sig meets Greenpeace standards by using over 25% recycled pixels.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: seals@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Larry W. Seals)
Subject: Re: House Bill 4848 - Any News?
Summary: $500,000 net worth - I'm almost there now!
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 03:29:56 GMT

Considering my age (39) and my estimated net worth now (savings, 
investments, property, etc. and whatever I can hang onto during the 
next four years), I'm already in the ballpark where my daughter might
get shafted if this legislation is enacted and I croak.

seals@ecsvax 

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13852 misc.legal:23295 talk.abortion:57961
From: scc@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Fetal Rights of Inheritance
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:23:47 GMT
Organization: International Computers Ltd

In article <1993Jan23.223910.20003@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dpollard@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dennis B Pollard) writes:
>Ah, Mr. Frank brings back my favorite law school subject.  Actually, I enjoyed 
>the Rule Against Perpetuities, abolished by statute in CA, because the CA 
>Legislature thought that it was too difficult to learn.

Abolished by statute?  I thought instead that there was a California Supreme
Court case which ruled that a lawyer who botched the RAP was not negligent.

In Lucas v. Hamm, 364 P.2d 685 (Cal. 1961), a lawyer set up a trust wherein
the trust would terminate five years after the order of the probate court
distributing the property to the trustee.  This violates the RAP, because
the probate court *could* take more than 16 years...  The court said,

	In view if the state of the law relating to perpetuities and
	restraints on alienation and the nature of the error, if any,
	asserted made by the defendant in preparing the instrument, it
	would not be proper to hold that the defendant failed to use such
	skill, prudence, and diligence as lawyers of ordinary skill and
	capacity commonly exercise.

I feel that this negligence is entirely appropriate if anyone is allowed
to practise law with a license, passing the bar, or even going to law
school.  But this is not the case.  If the argument is that you need a
lawyer to deal with the ins and outs of the law, why not hold them liable
in such a situation?  After all, that's what you're paying for.


-- 
Stephen Carlson           | ICL OFFICEPOWER Center    | In theory, theory and
scc@rlgvax.reston.icl.com | 11490 Commerce Park Drive | practice are the same.
..!uunet!rlgvax!scc       | Reston, VA  22091         |    (703) 648-3300
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 07:34:30 PST

In <1993Jan25.115934.5213@wkuvx1.bitnet>:

>How sterotypical can you be?

>Bill Cosby has the nerve to stereotype all Souther white males
>as hillbillies and "bubbas". Talk about hypocracy, If I (white,male)
>were to go on t.v. and stereotype all southern black as a bunch of
>welfare cheats, drug dealers, and lazy. THen I would be thrown in jail
>for violating his "constitutional rights".

Where did you see this?  I'm not claiming it's false, but I've neither seen nor
heard it anywhere.  I'd at least like to give the man the benefit of the doubt
before I judge him.  I'd like to see the actual words in print and IN CONTEXT--
his race is irrelevant.

>LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!!!

>BOYCOTT COSBY!

Gee...does Cosby have any businesses in Colorado?


Tim Irvin
******************************************************************************
This .sig meets Greenpeace standards by using over 25% recycled pixels.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gplong@nyx.cs.du.edu (George Long)
Subject: Re: abortion logic
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 22:08:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.4673.12392@dosgate> "david meadows" <david.meadows@
anrem.com> writes:
>Here's a question for all you pro-choice advocates out there.
>
>
>Let's imagine a family ... Mom, dad, a couple of kids and one on the 
>way. Dad has a good job, mom's on maternity leave. Dad and the two 
>kids get killed in a fiery car wreck. Dad leaves no will. Two days 
>later, mom gives birth. Does that child have any right to inherit from 
>his or her father? 
>
>        It is logical to assume that the child does have a right to 
>some of his or her dad's estate. If so, that child must have a legal 
>personality in the womb, no?
>
>        Just wondering ...
>
>
>David Meadows 

 David, your process is accurate, but your conclusion is flawed.

 When a woman becomes pregnant, a contingent remainder vests in the
 unborn child.  This means that if the father dies before the child
 is born, the child (and any other living children) share the
 estate with the wife.

 However, this does not mean that there is a recognition of a "legal
 personality" in the unborn child.  The history of contingent
 remainders in unborn children is less philosophical, I'm afraid.

 In a nutshell, it was a simple solution to a complex problem that
 arose in the Middle Ages in England.  In order not to disrupt the
 system of primogeniture that existed in medieval Britain, there had
 to be a way to ensure that a bastard child would not enter the world
 without his father's estate.  They decided to make a rule, allowing
 the child to share in the inheritance.

 It wasn't based on legal personalities, though.  It was merely a r
 reaction to a problem that would otherwise throw a wrench into 
 the male-dominated inheritance system.

 Nice try, though. 

 George Long
 P

p
From: Jeff_M_Lodoen@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Stations won't air RL's show during day
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 18:27:27 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Distribution: usa
  <1993Jan23.040614.20561@wattres.SJ.CA.US>

Most stations do air Rush at night (not always after midnight). Usually
somewhere from 10:30pm to 2am, or later.

A few stations that don't are:


 
ST  MARKET              CALL    TV/CABLE   AFF   DAY    TIME
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA  Los Angeles         KCOP    13/13      IND   M-F    3:30p; 1a
CA  Sacramento          KCRA    3          NBC   M-F    1a, 11:30a
CO  Colorado Springs    KOAA    5/30       NBC   M-F    11a
IL  Chicago             WGBO    66               M-F    2p; 10p
MI  Jackson             WILX    10         NBC   M-F    12:30p
NC  Durham              WRDC    28/12      NBC   M-F    12n
OH  Toledo              WUPW    36         FOX   M-F    1230p/1130p;330p-replay
OK  Oklahoma City       KFOR    4          NBC   M-F    11:30a; 11:35p
TX  Austin              KBVO    42/5       FOX   M-F    12n


Jeff_M_Lodoen@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: RUSH'S 'HIT' LIST (updated)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 26 Jan 93 10:24:06 CST


In <1993Jan25.180515.5210@memstvx1.memst.edu> kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

> RUSH LIMBAUGH: THE 'HIT' LIST
> 
> compiled and edited by Ken Barnes
> (75320.711@compuserve.com,
> KEBARNES@msuvx1.memst.edu)
...
> Spotted Owl/Timber Update:
> "The Lumberjack" by Jackyl*
> 
> * Confirmed by David Lovely (dlovely@meaddata.com)
> and Ron Dippold (rdippold@cancun.qualcom.com)

I always get a chuckle out of this.  
Jackyl's CD contains the following warning:

	Quick, buy this album
	Before some 
	Tight-ass,
	Right-wing censor
	Burns it

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 16:53:23 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Look in Webster's under "Straw Man," and you'll see this:
 <93021.165426KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <C19DtI.9ps@news.rich.bnr.ca>

In article <C19DtI.9ps@news.rich.bnr.ca>, gaj@n8ppd300.DOMAIN.NOT.SET (Gerald A.
Josephson) says:

>|>>Our poor helpless RL can't get his TV show aired during the day.
>|>>Boo Hoo Hoo.  The reason is that there is some big conspiracy
>|>>to suppress his ideas.  Everyone is out to hurt poor little
>|>>RL.  You can't see me right now, but big crocodile tears are
>|>>running down my face.

>Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Rush show has aired at noon here since it
>started.

That was part of my point (see subject).  He's attacking things Rush never
said.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh