HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:51:26 GMT

In article <1gtcd7INNkrl@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly) writes:
>
>First of all it must be stated that there is never anything "fair"
>in this world. One gets what one deserves. Work or lose - those 
>are the only two choices.
>
Hmm.  So whenever someone wins the lottery, or wins the election,
or wins anything, it's because they worked for it?  Nice to see
you give Clinton such a good recommendation.

>Next as a college graduate with an advanced degree who spends hours
>a day watching news (mostly C-Span) and reading voluminously and
>never watching football or guzzling beer I am only one of millions
>just like me (or nearly so) who find Dr Limbaugh not only correct
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^
What is he a doctor of?

>in his views much if not most of the time, but in addition begrudge
>him not one iota of his success. It is only the crybaby liberals
>who cannot stomach the idea that someone should not only succeed
>but EXCEED over one or more of his fellows. It is the concept of
>EXCEEDING that made this country great. But liberals don't like
>that - no one or no country should be better than anyone else in
>any way. This is, of course, prima facie evidence of rank stupidity.
Hmm.  In what way does Rush (NOT Dr Limbaugh) succeed?  He succeeds 
in alienating millions of Americans with his name-calling, he succeeds
in lying to get what he wants, he succeeds in making himself look
like a fool.  Yeah, sure he succeeds.

>
>Sorry, you deserve to be a loser until you change your attitude and
>decide you will become the best it is possible to become with the
>talents God gave you.
>
>-- 
>
                         --The Grim Reaper
                           (SCYTHE@U.WASHINGTON.EDU)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:33:48 GMT

cc774@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert M Connelly) writes:
>If the shoe fits that you are a wacko, pinko, communist or some
>other form of extremist, so be it. We conservatives (including
>Dr Limbaugh) do not lump all our liberal opponents in the same
>basket as almost all liberals claim. 

    Well, at least not in every single sentence. I'm sure glad you 
caught yourself there and inserted that "almost all". We wouldn't want 
to make any sweeping generalizations, now would we?

>But there is no getting
>around it the Slick Willie and his servant algor and Hillary and
>Mitchell and and and and are wackos and extremists on the wrong
>side of what is good for the country and are opposed to all the
>things that made this country the greatest in the world.

    Wow, you moved a little fast for me there. I'm afraid that this 
reminds me of those math classes I took in which the professor wrapped 
up lectures at the end of the hour by saying something like "the derivation 
of this is left as an exercise" or "from this it is obvious that...".

    Personally I would say that it's not altogether clear where Clinton 
stands on much of anything. If you can draw solid conclusions from what's 
been made public so far then you're either much smarter or much slicker 
or possibly just much hastier than me.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: Jim.Shirreffs
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Ca
Organization: JJ Software
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 16:49:34 GMT

|An applicable analogy is: there is a woman's shower room with a hole .
|The other side of the hole is in the floor of a men's locker room. Men
|there notice the hole and spend their time watching the women taking
|showers. After about six monthes the hole is discovered by the women and
|they ask to have the hole fixed. At that time the men who were watching
|complained saying "whats the problem we've been watching for six
|monthes and nobody ever had a problem." and demanded that the hole
|remain.

Geat analogy! I loved it, best I'm read yet. Just to show you how 
much I liked i, I'm going to "steal it"

jim shirreffs

i speak for myself and only myself
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: paws@spam.cray.com (Daniel Baehr)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: 11 Dec 92 11:05:17 CST


In article <1992Dec11.140528.26046@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>, cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black) writes:

       [Much deleted...]

>     There is no attempt to persuade, unless it is to persude kids that
> their parent-fed bigotry may have no factual basis.  Again, it just
> presents reality in an accepting manner.  How could religious parents
> object to their children being taught acceptance?
> 

    Who is to judge what PARENTS teach their children is right OR wrong.
 When we start to make these little "exceptions" to the rights and 
 responsibilities of ANY group of people we open up a very terrible can
 of worms.  The "if we can tell the children this or that is wrong then
 we CAN tell the parents HOW to raise their children" is only one example
 of what can go wrong.  Society DOES impose a set of "rules" on EVERYBODY.
 But those rules should be interpreted within the frame work of the values
 taught by the family unit.  Society is NOT more important than the  
 family.  FAMILIES make up society NOT the other way around.

    Also.  What is wrong with accepting bigotry?  After all that is THEIR
 "reality".  So then, whos reality are we really talking about here?

    All in all the majority is going to win out.  Period.  MANY more
 people are hetrosexual than homosexual and the VAST majority agrees with
 the hetrosexual life style.  (70%+ I think..??)

    If you start makeing laws that favor gays then why not make a law
 that favors people into beastiality, s+m, hetrosexuality or any of the
 other sexual life styles?  After all, fair is fair.


>    ******************************************************************
>      Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
>      Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 


        Daniel Baehr

   
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Daniel Baehr Work: paws@spam.cray.com  Home: daniel_baehr@bearsden.UUCP  |
|              Portal: paws@cup.portal.com  -> (Public Access UNIX system) |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: EVERY 0NE READ THIS !!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:37:21 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1g4djsINNdb7@life.ai.mit.edu> notbiff@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Jake Davis Smith) writes:
>TEST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>TESTING
>
>
>0NE
>
>
>
>TW0
>
>
>
>
>
>THREE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>F0UR
>
>
>
>
>FIVE
>
>
>
>TEST
>
>
>
>CAN U READ THIS ?????????????????????????????????
>
>
>
>PS IF MISTER LIMBUG IS LISTENING 2 THIS BB0ARD :  Y0UR A BLIMP0 !!!!!!!
>
>--
>                        Y0URE PAL,
>                NELS0N 0TBIFF
>
>                                                        G0 METS !!!!!!!!!!
> RUSH IS G00D STUFF & I D0NT MEAN LIMBUG !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!    

1) It's Limbaugh, not limbo or limbug
2) Did your 8th grade teacher ever talk about the difference between
"your" and "you're" ?

Liberals for Rush....












































Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clintion
From: ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:19:02 GMT

>In article <1992Dec14.084120.24964@math.ucla.edu> getachew@yosemite.math.ucla.edu (getachew hagos) writes:
>}Why are African wild animals does not starve to death? 
>}	If you want to hear the answers, it's the US that created the whole
>}mess in Somalia, it's that guilty concessions and possibly seeking advantage

If you remember correctly, there was a cold war going on in the region as
well as most of the rest of the world.  The evil Soviet empire had more to
do with Somalia being the way it is than anything else.  This mentality of
blaming the US for everything wrong with the world is an old tired cliche
and is now only used by the terminally naive.  While the armchair quarterbacks
of the world (most other countries) watched the game, the US and the Soviets
were going at it, and guess what, the better government won, no thanks to
you armchair people.

>}I, on the other hand agree with the US gov't
>}on accepting the fact that they were part of the problem out there and 
>}trying to fix the mess they created, but not with your half-witted idea
>}that the US being the policeman of the entire world, nor the fact that the 
>}US is the only nation that can do this. Got it!

If the US is not the only nation that can do this they have demonstrated that
they are the only nation WILLING to do this.  In one shipment of food this
summer from the US more food was shipped in than the sum total of food 
delivered from the entire rest of the world.  What the hell are the wealthy
Japanese or the Germans or the French doing?  Damn little to nothing.  So
stop bad mouthing the US and realize that while others are in a seemingly
permanent stage of apathy, the US acts.

ray
From: MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: re:HYPOCRISY!!!
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:50:04 GMT
 <1992Dec13.204349.1@gacvx1.gac.edu>
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy

In article <1992Dec13.204349.1@gacvx1.gac.edu>, cnordstr@gacvx1.gac.edu says:
>I agree that racial equality will never be achieved by quota, but we all know
>what wouldv'e happened had George Bush NOT chosen a black man/woman to replace
>Thurgood Marshal: he would've been branded a racist forever, and liberals
>would again take up the battle cry of "Republican racism strikes again!"

Okay, now I've seen this baseless assertion several times on the net.
What gives it any credibility, may I ask?

"Thank you, Dr. Science."

[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ryanm@stein.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly)
Subject: Re: Conservative vs Liberal Discussions...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:41:29 GMT

In article <nate.949@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>ryanm@stein.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:
>>What I dislike (extreemly) is when the discussions begin as fruitful but
>>end up as a name calling thread that you send to never-never land.
>
>    I really do sympathize with your distaste for name-calling. Whenever 
>it happens it's deplorable. I might want to extend that farther than 
>you'd care and say that I think that even some of Rush's name-calling is 
>deplorable, but that's not really the point here.

Agreed...

>
>    I've seen a lot of accusations here that name-calling is "typical 
>liberal behavior", but I'd like to suggest an alternate interpretation. 
>Name-calling is immature behavior; whether it's done by 5 year old kids 
>or 20 year old college students or 40 year old talk show hosts. Sometimes 
>it can be funny, but it very rarely adds anything to a discussion so I'd 
>like to think that we usually manage to avoid it here.
>

Good point...

>    In my opinion the reason that we're seeing more of this behavior from 
>liberals is that those particular liberals are young and immature. I would 
>also add that people seem to have a greater likelihood of being liberal 
>when they're young and conservative when they're older, so liberals just 
>end up with the lion's share of the immaturity. But it's not so much a 
>liberal trait as it is of the immature. Just in case you've never seen 
>this, I now include 

My post just made before this one has a better explanation of name calling
IMHO.  I do agree that Rush uses names (sometimes) that aren't needed. 
However, most of the names he uses are symbolic.  When you focus on the
names as the subject for discussion is when it becomes name calling.

[Childish test deleted]

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


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  Ryan McNeilly                    Internet: ryanm@u.washington.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"You can't deal from a position of weakness"  --Alfred Thayer Mahan
Moral:  Protect the 2nd Amendment!

My comments and opinions are my own and nobody elses!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.forum
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:09:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.131326.4169@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <BzBL42.4wC@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>> In article <92350.145137KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>> 
>> >Why do we need a moderated group?  There are intelligent liberals here, who
>> >help stimulate thought.  The stupid ones are easy to ignore (or flame, which-
>> >ever is your preference. :)
>> 
>> It still creates noise.  If we can have a moderated soc.feminism
>> group, we can have a moderated group for conservatism.
>> 
>> My question is why does it need to be called "alt.conservative.forum?"
>> Couldn't it have a more intelligent name, like
>> "alt.politics.conservative?"
>
>or "alt.politically.correct.conservatives" which would describe what the 
>group is about.
>
>-- 
>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!)

Or alt.conservatives.who.are.such.weenies.that.they.can't.bear.to.argue.with.
all.those.scary.liberals.
=)

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party ( Was Re: Conservative Values (Re: New
Reply-To: egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:53:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.110546.22337@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>In article <mlbruce.724692887@husc11>, mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:
>> 
>> Oddly enough, in national elections up to 1992, the Republicans seemed to
>> have done best when they could demonstrate the lines of ideological
>> distinction between the parties, the Democrats doing best when those
>> distinctions could be blurrer.
>
>Or there is the "pocket book" view:
>
>> 1972: McGovern shown to be in far left-- Nixon wins easily.
>  1972: Economy growing (voters happy) -> Nixon re-elected.

[other examples deleted]

Regarding "ideological distinctions," what about '64, which was a hell
of a GOP trouncing on Reagan's ideological forerunner?  Also, '68,
where the lines were a little blurred between Humphrey and Nixon
(albeit with the Dems having to deal with the anti-war insurgency
within their own party)?

Economic happiness (or perceptions of such) is a far, far better
explanation.




--
The insane fear of socialism throws the bourgeois headlong into the
arms of despotism.
			-- Tocqueville, 1852
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Khat (Summary Wed 12/9/92)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Keywords: Rush Limbaugh Unofficial Summary
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: 15 Dec 92 10:35:43 CST


In article <1992Dec14.222307.28639@netcom.com>, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
> In article <1992Dec14.132640.20090@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> >
> >Unofficial Summary for Wednesday, December 9, 1992:
> >
> >> o       The troops in Somalia are encountering a drug, Khat,
> >> which is derived from a local shrub; Khat can cause paranoid
> >> psychosis and distort judgment, and is a favorite of the Somali
> >> gunmen who routinely chew the shrub's leaves to allay their
> >> anxiety. The Marines are thus being warned to expect possible
> >> psychotic behavior from some Somalis; US soldiers are also being
> >> told that the drug is readily identifiable in urine, and thus it
> >> would not be wise to experiment with it.
> >
> >It should be noted that a Doctor on NPR stated that while Khat
> >is an amphetamine, the concetration in leaves is so low that the 
> >effect is the same as drinking a strong cup of coffee.  The effect
> >of excessive Khat chewing is the same as excessive coffee drinking.
> 
> The LA Times had a feature story on this, and it left the impression
> that since no Khat was available for the first 48 hours after the 
> Marines landed that there was a real threat of withdrawal-induced
> rioting.

This is interesting.  Why would there be no Khat available for the 
first 48 hours after the Marine landing?  1) I can see the trade being
disrupted slightly due to "warlords" moving troups/weapons out of
Mogadishu, but I doubt that would result in no Khat being available.
2) Given the chaos in Samalia, how would anyone know how much Khat 
was available?  They may have some antidotal evidence, but not enough
to claim that there was no Khat available for 48 hours.

>           The Times, though, also claimed that Khat calmed the nerves
> of the Somali gunmen, which is hard to understand if it is an 
> amphetamin (unless the dose is so low, that taking it is just calming
> minor withdrawal symptoms?). 

I'm not an expert on amphetamines, but I know that with coffee the body
becomes used to increasing levels of caffine.  The result is that increasing
levels are needed to feel "normal" and even more to feel the stimulus effect.
Without caffine, the body has withdrawl effects, such as irritability, 
drowsiness, and headaches.

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:44:00 GMT

In article <JASON.92Dec17105657@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.192140.24606@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>-> In article <m0iVVB6w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
[SNIP!]

>
>	I don't think a moderated discussion group is the answer.
>Here's a few rules I follow while reading to skip the endless cliche:
>
>	-If the article contains the word ``facist'', ``Nazi'', or
>``bigot'' delete it.
>
>	-If the article makes a lame attempt at playing with Rush's
>name or calling him a name, delete it.  Some examples are Limbots,
>Flush Limburger, and Thewindbag.
>
>	-If the article contains the phrase ``religous right'', delete
>it.
>
>	-If an article is recommending a boycot, delete it.
>
>	-If an article is predicting the downfall of Rush, delete it. 
>
>Any more?
>
>--
>Jason C. Austin
>j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov
>


-If it contains "abortion", "gay", "black", "military", "homosexual",
 "issue", "conservative", "liberal", or "flame", delete it.
That way, you don't actually have to read the newsgroup! =)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9981 alt.politics.clinton:18469 alt.politics.bush:14463 alt.politics.homosexuality:7894 alt.rush-limbaugh:11478
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Date: 12 Dec 1992 13:47 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zeus.tamu.edu

In article <Bz5r1K.9wK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes...
| 
|  Except for an occasional screw-up (play on words unintended), the
|military has not knowingly drafted, enlisted, or commissioned anyone whom
|they knew to be homosexual.  Those who are later found to be such are quickly
|separated.  Admittedly, my experience only goes back three decades so I
|can't address what the policy was prior to that.  The "need every bit of
|help they can get" argument sounds more like a Billary initiative.

	Indeed?  I was told that now-a-days, you cannot claim to be Gay
in order to get out of the military when there is compulsory service 
(draft).  I hate to have given out incorrect information.  Do you know
if what you are saying is true for these days?

Gadson Sandor
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.forum
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 17 Dec 92 09:43:15 CST


In article <1992Dec17.140725.15066@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, stamber@rainbow.ecn.purdue.edu (Kevin L. Stamber) writes:
> In article <1gl52rINN4mf@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU (if God's your father then call home!) writes:
> > I would like to formally propose a new group, alt.conservative.forum, 
> > a moderated group to discuss conservative values and assorted political
> > goings-on from a distinctly right-wing standpoint.
> > 
> > Rationale:  Let's face it:  the net is infested with liberals.  I won't
> > say this is either good or bad, but the fact is there.  Another fact:  
> > some jerks with distinctly left-wing tendencies like to post to groups like
> > alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and post tons of gibberish about everything
> > conservatives stand for, without factual defense of their positions.
> > 
> > A moderated group would cut out this gibberish and allow reasoned, intelligent
> > discussion of the issues facing the country and the world.  Intelligent
> > conservatives (and I will propose intelligent liberals as well, since, 
> > contrary to popular conservative opinion, such animals do exist) will be
> > encouraged to participate in our discussions.
> > 
>      The question still remains:  will we invite people to be a part of this,
> as the 'sleepy' Clinton did at his forum at the center of the Universe (Little
> Rock), or will it be a forum open to all?
>      I agree with you as to the current state of a.r-l and a.f.r-l; too many
> people with single issues floating around in their cerebral cortex.  You know
> what they say -- a little thought can be dangerous.  We must remember that we
> are dealing with single issue people.  I see topics which I know I'm not going
> to read (abortion, for example) which have literally taken on a life of their
> own (small smiley here).                                        ^^^^
>      Some of these topics were on the net when I began to read (A while ago.)
> It's time for whoever's in charge of a.r-l and a.f.r-l to crack down on the
> length of the debate of some 'issues' for the  sake of the reading public.

Well, what topics do you suggest should be discussed?  Which ones should
be off limits?

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh