HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: 2frjbits@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Preston J. Park)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Date: 14 Apr 92 19:12:32 CDT
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Macrocosm BBS: 913-841-9446

In article <1992Apr13.140409.26282@nynexst.com>, em@nynexst.com 
(Edward Man) writes:

> Forget S.C. Let's try the federal level. Sometime soon, case A will
> be brought before the Supreme Court; and the court rules Roe vs Wade
> is illegal and unconstitutional on grounds that it kills an unborn
> human being.

No, I can't see the court doing that.  The court now is >constructionist< not
conservative as the press would miss inform us.  The Supreme Court be much
more likely to rule any new legislation legal despite RvW (Remember the New
Deal courts), since saying the Constitution outlaws abortion is just as stupid 
as saying it protects it.

-- 
| Preston Park |____________________________________________________________
| 1:280/108    | 2frjbits@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | ppark@tesla.ece.ukans.edu |P.|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|The LAUG Apple II Development Group -A SIG of the Lawrence Apple Users Group|
|and Lawrence S.P.A.M. Society -Serious (Silly) Programmers of Apple Machines|
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 14:42:09 GMT

In article <29E3E8F3.12311@ics.uci.edu> bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers) writes:
>The Pro-Choice movement was never a "fringe" movement.  Gallup poll
>after Gallup poll has shown that a majority of Americans are opposed
>to making abortion illegal.

Absolutely right. But this does not mean that they are "pro-choice."
As a matter of fact, most Americans (about 65-70%) favor restricted
abortion; e.g., when the mother's life is in danger. This is where
I stand. "Pro-choice" and "pro-life" are really misnomers. They
should be called what they really are, pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
I wondered what the polls would show if the question "Are you
pro-abortion, anti-abortion, or for restricted abortion?" were asked
instead of something simple and misleading like "Are you pro-choice
or pro-life?"

I would also like to ask the following questions:
	1) Do you think abortion is a surgical procedure?
	2) Do you know that doctors cannot perform any surgical procedure
		on a minor without guardian consent?
	3) You know what this one should be.

>Plus, there are many more Pro-Choice Republicans than there are
>Pro-Life Democrats.  Pete Wilson, Republican governor of California,
>is Pro-Choice.  John Seymour, Republican senator from California is
>too.  Some of the most conservative Republicans are even Pro-Choice:
>Alan Simpson of Wyoming is the best example I can think of right now.
>Possible independent presidential candidate, Ross Perot, is Pro-Choice.
>Even George Bush was a Pro-Choice Republican before he flip-flopped to
>appease the religious right and maintain the Reagan legacy.

OK, you've indicated all the Dem-o'-rats are wrong and some of
the Republicans are wrong. What is your point? Just because more
people are wrong than right, that doesn't make it right. (Think
about it.)

>The Pro-Life movement is dominated largely by devout Catholics and
>fundamentalist Christians.  Not exactly a majority of Americans.

Not a majority, but certainly a large portion. And certainly more than
the number of HIV infected people, and more than the number of
environmentalist wackos. If the government listens to them why
not the church? Actually, the number of pro-abortion people (by
my definition) is slightly more than anti-abortion people. So if
we don't listen to one then we shouldn't listen to the other.
FYI, I am not religious at all.

----------
Ed
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mark@tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (Mark Whiting)
Subject: Borrow: Tape of Donahue vs. Rush
Summary: Anyone get this on tape?
Keywords: Austin Rush Donahue Tape Borrow
Organization: Applied Research Labs, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 12:50:43 GMT

If anyone in the Austin area got the Monday Donahue show
with (vs. ?) Rush Limbaugh on tape, I would like to borrow
the tape for viewing one evening.

Please email reply to

mark@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu (not the address in the header)

or leave a message at 251-5705.  Thank you!

-Mark Whiting


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kst@bristlecone.cs.Virginia.EDU (Kevin Treu)
Subject: MacKinnon quote: correct?
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:00:58 GMT

Regarding Limbaugh's show today (4/14/92), did Catherine MacKinnon actually
say that "all sex is rape", and if so, what is the context?  I simply can't
take that as face value, as Rush does.  What was she trying to say?


-- 
Kevin Treu                  University of Virginia
kst@cs.virginia.edu         Department of Computer Science

Go PIRATES!          Go PENGUINS!          Go HOOS!
From: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The unfortunate death of conservativism
Date: 10 Apr 92 05:37:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: milestn.33
Reply-To: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Organization: Milestone R/D Labs, Milw. WI

In article <4558@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>Reality check vis-a-vis "deviant".......
>
>I'll bet that *most* netters might find a bit of common ground in the
>judgment of the actions of Jeffrey Dahmer.  Survey time:

As I'm now in Milwaukee, I'm qualified to talk about Jeff...... 

>Were the actions (lobotomies, necrophilia, etc) of J.D. deviant, or is
>he just misunderstood?

Jeff's actions are no more deviant than turning on a radio and listing to 
Rush Limbaugh.

As 'deviant' is actions not accepted by the majority, Listening to Rush
qualifies.  

HOWEVER, listing to Rush does not deprive anyone of life or liberty.  
Jeff did both.  Jeff's "deviance" is not why he's locked up, it's the
fact he deprived others of life.  Now, if Jeff had been in Vietnam
(or some other war/state of conquest sponsered by the "enforcers of laws")
and did something like this to the 'natives', do you think he'd be 
locked up for the rest of his life?


-- 
Marc Rassbach       marcr@studsys.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
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 14:59:09 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.220255.945@desire.wright.edu> psmoker@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Why could he not credibly say "monogomy?" He knows he is putting himself at
>risk. As do all the pot smokers, the beer and wine drinkers, and on a more
>realistic level, anybody who ever gets into a 2 ton death machince called
>a car. I can still credibly say the best way not to get into a car accident
>is to not get into a car, and then drive home...

He's a hypocrite! That's why! Do as I say, not as I do. Maybe hypocrites
are the kind of persons you want to be your President, not mine.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:03:47 -0500

In article <46@milestn.UUCP> marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>*>>>Has it ever occurred to you that because of our excellent judgment
>>*>>>that's why we have never tried it?

>[Backing up a bit for historic reasons...... The rush.regulars (I believe
>it was none other than Nathan and Andrew) said they had tried pot and
>said most people in the '60s tried pot.  Ed responded with the above.]

    Hold on thar. I said I tried it. I even inhaled. But I don't think I
tried to speak for what most people did. When you get right down to it,
I was in knee pants back in the 60's so I didn't even try pot during the
60's myself; more like the late 70's/early 80's.

>>>>Anal retentiveness perhaps?
>[My answer to why Ed wasn't a pot smoker.]

    Then it was a poor answer; it's mighty hard to inhale that way,
although maybe if you had superb rectal control... Still, I wouldn't
advise it. The dangers of cutting a fart and setting off an explosion
would be too great. 

>>Does this sound better? I did say they have excellent judgment;
>>I won't comment on what they do with it.
>
>No Ed, you claimed YOU and the other non-smokers had the excellent 
>judgement.  

    Personally, I agree with Ed here. I don't believe that smoking is an
indication of excellent judgment; quite the reverse in fact, although I
think that many people over-react to public admissions of experimentation 
with pot. If Clinton or Rush had been long term users instead of one-time 
experimenters then that might be significant, but I think that opponents 
of both Clinton and Rush try to overemphasize the scale and importance 
of their use.

-- 
Nathan Engle             Software Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 20:19:36 GMT

nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (nathan engle) writes:

>>Rush. A Dope Fiend. Who would have believed???

>    I believe it, but I think that you should use the correct tense in
>your subject line. The fact that Rush had one puff more than 20 years
>ago shouldn't surprise or alarm anyone. I believe that the effects of
>marijuana don't last more than a couple hours anyway. What's the big
>deal?

But during that same broadcast, Rush called Clinton a "dope smoking
philanderer", even though Clinton only admitted to trying pot once
or twice over 20 years ago. What's good for the goose is good for the
gander.


-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
csc450zcs@vxc.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: bvickers@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Reply-To: bvickers@ics.uci.edu (Brett J. Vickers)
Organization: Univ. of Calif., Irvine, Info. & Computer Sci. Dept.
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:30:05 GMT

>>If you had ever even seen the Gallup Reports on abortion, you would not
>>have asked this question.  The Gallup Polls asked whether abortion
>>should be made illegal.  A majority of Americans (nearly two-thirds)
>>has consistently stated that abortion should remain legal.

em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>This is NOT the question I've asked! Can't you see the difference?
>They are two difference questions. Your question divide "respondents"
>into two groups, and mine threee. It is this third group that destroy
>your credibility. You know deep in your heart that most of the "YES"
>votes go to the third group, and hence weaken your argument.

Well, the Gallup Reports usually address this issue, asking Americans
whether they agree with abortion in certain special instances: abortion
as a means of birth control, abortion for sex selection, etc.
You will find the agreeing percentage of respondents diminishing
when you add these twists.  Not surprising.  But my original point
was that most Americans don't want to see abortion become illegal.
I am not sure if the Gallup Report has ever specifically asked Americans
how they would feel about the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade,
but I will check to see.

>>By the way, your ex cathedra labeling of pro-choice people as "wrong"
>>is not going to get you any points in this or any debate.  Let's leave
>>the labels out and debate the issues rationally, please.

>Excuse me, "wrong" is not a label. You mean I should not say you are
>wrong even if you are wrong. So, you don't want me to tell the truth.
>Sorry, can't help you; I am an honest person.

You can continue to be insulting and self-righteous, but you only make
your argument look weaker.

>>Well, we do have this thing called the separation of Church and State.

>What does this got to do with anything? If what you mean is that the
>State should not adopt law compatible with the Church's believes then
>maybe we should legalize murder, etc.

Maybe if you wouldn't cut out the original statement, you'd see what
I was responding to.  You asked, "Why doesn't the government listen
to the Church?"  That's different than asking why the government
doesn't listen to individuals who go to church.

>>As to your assertion that the government listens to environmentalists
>>and AIDS activists:  I'm not quite sure what planet you're living on.

>Do you know who Al Gore is? You think he doesn't listen to those
>wackos? How about all those liberal government officials? Have you
>ever listen to or read those campaign messages?

I have yet to hear Al Gore say anything "wacko" concerning the
environment.  I have heard Rush Limbaugh say many wacko things
concerning the environment, however.

--
bvickers@ics.uci.edu | "Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there
brett@ucippro.bitnet |  is the danger of oppression." - James Madison
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
From: krueger@galileo.uucp (Ted Krueger)
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:12:38 MST
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Apr9.033938.13844@news.cs.brandeis.edu> st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>>So what do the dittoheads think? Do you think that 500,000
>>people gathered in one place for one reason is a fringe group? Is it
>
>	No, you definitely have a point here Alex.  If 500,000 people were at
>that march, we can also assume that there were many more who (for whatever
>reasons) didn't show up but still support the cause.  I think we can drop 
>the "fringe" nomenclature.  

I don't know if fringe or not fringe can be decided based on a public 
gathering of 500,000 people, but perhaps Rush does not think that a 
gathering based on abortion is important since he thinks that Roe 
v. Wade will be overturned because it is bad law, and not because 
the population supports or does not support abortion.

Another comment: When the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, it will 
not outlaw abortion, it will simply turn the choice over to the states.  
If there is a great amount of public support for abortion, then what 
is N.O.W concerned about? People in the individual states will vote 
to maintain the legality of abortion. 

Ted

Q: How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
A: That's not funny.
---------- krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu ----------
From: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Date: 12 Apr 92 19:59:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: milestn.44
Reply-To: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Organization: Milestone R/D Labs, Milw. WI

In article <1992Apr10.151046.6425@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
<In article <35@milestn.UUCP> marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
<<Why does Bill's sexual habbits matter?
<
<Why don't you ask Slick, "What is the best way to prevent AIDS?"
<Do you think he can credibly say "monogomy?" Well, abstinence is
<not practical.

Again Ed, Why does Bill's sexual habbits matter?
-- 
Marc Rassbach       marcr@studsys.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
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 15:15:05 GMT

In article <36@milestn.UUCP> marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
... [Deleted] ...
>2) What do you consider acusations, and what do you consider evidance?
> ...[deleted]... I've heard accusations of George Bush sleeping
>around with some aid in a motel room......

This is an accusation where the press had investigated and found
absolutely nothing. And there is no evidence.
For Slick Willy, there was an accusation, and Gennifer Follows and
her tapes are evidence. Can't you see?

Ed
From: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:08:43 GMT
Reply-To: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Distribution: usa,local
Organization: Brandeis University

>>In fact, if congress passed such a law, the supreme court would probably
>>have to throw it out anyway, for the same reason that it will presumably
>>overturn roe-v-wade.

>That's exactly what I said, that's exactly what I meant, and that's
>exactly my point! I said it in 2 sentences, 3 lines, 27 words, or 171
>characters, instead of 4 sentences, 7 lines, 81 words, and 458
>characters. 8-) What's your problem?

	I think you're still missing his point, Ed.  Don't worry, because there
is no way at this point in time for the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion.
The S.C. decides the constitutionality of LAWS, not issues.
	In order to repeal the 18th amendment, someone had to bring a case to 
the court, challenging the law on the prohibition issue - showing its
unconstitutionality.  That's the only means for the S.C. to do anything.

	When the S.C. decided that the 18th amendment was unconstitutional, the
issue was once again thrown open to the states.  At that point (and someone
with a little time on their hands might consider researching whether or not 
this happened) the states could have passed laws (or may have already had
them on the books) that outlawed the use of alcohol.  These laws probably
wouldn't have remained in tact for very long as a powerful legal precedent
had been set by the S.C.

	Had the prohibition laws of the states differed enough from the
original, they might have gotten around the reasons that the S.C. 
originally used to decide against prohibition.

	Point being - if the S.C. does overturn Roe v Wade, and as long as the 
laws protecting abortion on the state level are not of the same vein (ie
they don't allow for unconditional abortion on demand) then there is a good
chance that those state laws might survive.  True, abortion might also be 
outlawed in this case, but the people, thru the demopcratic process, will
have both choices at their disposal - which is my main concern.

	I hope I've been able to clear this up for you.  If you really did 
understand in the first place, then please accept my humbled apologies for
wasting you time with such a long-winded analogy/example.
                                             Patrick 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Reply-To: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:15:18 GMT

>I guess comming from such a wonderful background qualifies you for
>the abilty to judge others?

>>Has it ever occurred to you that because of our excellent judgment
>>that's why we have never tried it?

>Anal retentiveness perhaps?

	Now, Marc I think you'd better rethink what your saying here.  True, he
made some somewhat unreasonable statements, but that's no reason to lose
your cool and suggest that those of us who haven't tried pot are anal
retentive.  It seems to me that you both started out with some valid and
pertinent points and then went way overboard...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: Rush SmokeD Pot (was Re: Rush Smokes Pot)
Reply-To: st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 16:48:06 GMT

>>Now, Marc I think you'd better rethink what your saying here.  True, he
>>made some somewhat unreasonable statements, but that's no reason to lose
>>your cool and suggest that those of us who haven't tried pot are anal
>>retentive.  It seems to me that you both started out with some valid and
>>pertinent points and then went way overboard...

>What is so unreasonable about it? Is it
>another one of your Politically Corrupt things? Should I only
>say good things about them even if they are bad. Ok, I'll do it.

>I guess it's because of their excellent judgment, that's why they
>do drugs and waste their brains. (Hey, don't look at me; it is
>scientific that drug do damage brain cells.)

>Does this sound better? I did say they have excellent judgment;
>I won't comment on what they do with it.

	What is so unreasonable about saying that those who haven't tried pot 
have excellent judgement is that it isn't true.  Many folks who haven't tried
pot just haven't had the opportunity - no judgement involved.
	
	After you made this "highbrow" statement, Marc went reactionary on us
and called you anal retentive - the whole exchange became anger, not reason.

	I wholeheartedly agree that not using pot is an excellent decision for 
those that have been faced with the choice & there's no need for you'uns
to go reactionary on me.  But when you make the statement that anyone who
hasn't tried pot has good judgement (sounds like a general statement) you
start creating an intellectual upper and lower class on the basis of one 
issue - not good.  Even those folks who didn't opt to use pot when faced
with the chance don't necessarily have good judgement in general.  When
you went and made the statement therefore, Marc took what you were saying
in a bad way, just because the context of the statement sounded bad.  And
to that extent I agree with him that you weren't completely right on the 
matter.  We parted ways however, when he called you and everyone like you
who hasn't tried pot (me included) anal retentive - which, as I mentioned 
before, is a very reactionary statement which goes too far (I personally
have never had any real problems defecating).

	Once again, I hope I've interpreted this situation and if I haven't, 
then forgive my humble mental prowess.  I tried.
	By the way, who were you talking to and what did you mean when you 
said: "another one of your Politically Corrupt things"?
                                             -Patrick
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: tcanham@kilroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Tim Canham)
Subject: Rush on Donahue in L.A.
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:58:46 GMT

To all the L.A. area dittoheads out there:

Rush will appear on Donahue in L.A. on April 27 on NBC at 3:00


-- 
Tim Canham
tcanham@kilroy.jpl.nasa.gov
Jet Propulsion Laboratories, Pasadena, CA
"Everybody always told me I was a rocket scientist!"