HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Interesting Clinton Supporters
From: jhoward@cstp.umkc.edu
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 02:16:02 GMT
 <1992Sep28.035953.1444@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <BvAH1r.MwC.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Distribution: usa,na
Organization: UM - Kansas City, Computer Science

In article <BvAH1r.MwC.2@cs.cmu.edu>, anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed) writes:
> VIETNAM                                       IRAQ
>>Started with defensive advisors		ditto
>>Troops held back for political reasons	ditto
>>War drags on for YEARS			(watch for Gulf War II)
>>Americans leave country			ditto
>>20,000 dead				        100 dead
>>Enemy undefeated			        ditto
> 
> Oh, Please.  The clearly stated primary objective of Desert Storm
> was to liberate Kuwait.  This was accomplished with a minimal loss of 
> American troops.  A secondary mandate was to destroy Iraq's weapons of 
> mass destruction.  This has been accomplished thus far without further
> military action.  Much as I'd like to see it, killing Saddam Hussein 
> was never a mandate of the war.
...  
> Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student

Oh, please.  Do you actually believe that war was about liberation and freedom.
It was about money!  All wars are about money in the end analysis.  If Mr. Bush
hadn't any ties to the oil industry and in particular the offshore machinary
within Kuwaiti waters, it is doubtful the U.S. would have gotten involved.  The
coddling of Saddam Huessein by the Bush administration only affirms that the
U.S. government was hedging its bets.  When Saddam wanted too great a share of
the oil he got the ball taken from him, that's all!  If the U.S. could find a
way to suck the oil out from under the feet of whoever is occupying the land
without too much hassle, believe me we would.  We are just filling up our
reserves.  Ask the Kurds or the Serbs if they have enough natural resources to
swap for some protection money.
Mr. Bush accomplished his mission already, the oil is safe.
Who needs the gold standard when you've got oil (or nuclear for that matter)?

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: T.S.A.K.C.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 11:54:24 GMT

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
->keegan@acm.rpi.edu (James G. Keegan Jr.) writes:
->>->>->87% of americans have comprehensive health 
->>->>->care plans. 
->>->>
->>->>can you support this statement?
->>
->>->Of course not.  
->>
->>i didn't think so. thank you.
->>
->>->I only heard it on Rush's show about 11 times in the 
->>->last three weeks.  
->>
->>that's what i thought.
->>
->>->But of course Rush always lies, so I guess I must 
->>->be lying.
->>
->>if you say so.

->I know that I already posted this on another group, but I wanted to repeat 
->it since it is sooo good.

->NEW SOURCE FOR 87% - BILL CLINTON DURING THE OCT 11 DEBATE

->He said that 35 million do not have health care.  Run the numbers.  
->87.333% have health care (give or take a percent)!

that's exactly what he said. it's not what you, and
that silly twit rush said, though. you calimed
"comprehensive health care." your so-called evidence
refers to health care.

this wasn't even a good try. you would have come across
better simply admitting your mistake.

->Now do you believe me? 

of course not.

->Probably not, because, you know that I listen 
->to Rush, (and agree with him) so everything that spews forth from my 
->mouth must be lies???

as i said before, if you say so.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jeffgus@netcom.com (Jeffrey Gustafson)
Subject: Re: Phil Gramm's analysis of Clinton's plan
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:38:29 GMT

attebery@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

>Does anyone out there have a copy of Phil Gramm's analysis of Clinton's
>economic plan?  If so, could you please post it and/or mail me a copy?
>Thanks!

	Me too!  If someone has it please e-mail it to me.
	Thanks!
			jeffgus@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:52:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1992Oct13.200611.15344@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Oct13.084801.7428@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
> >
> >Is this some more of those "family values" the alleged pro-life
> >Republicans are talking about?  "on the spot execution", "death penalty",
> >and all for just standing around an abortion clinic.  Damn, Jesus would be
> >proud.
> >
>>No, just a proposed work of "futuristic" fiction.  Not reality, although
> I get the feeling that some people here think it is real.

Hey, I get the distinct impression that some other people would like it to
be.

No fucking smiley, Simon.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7009 alt.activism.d:3711 alt.politics.elections:15931
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politic
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:40:52 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct8.131914.8674@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>I too believe that abortion, in most cases, is barbaric.  It is especially
>barbaric when used as birth control.  Neither side in this debate is willing
>to come to a compromise (if there is one).  I would suggest that a good
>compromise would be that life begins with brain activity.  Brain activity is
>certainly considered as an indication of the end of life, why not the
>beginning?
>
>$0.02
>
>
>Jeff.

My sentiments exactly.  Look at the way it has been used for birth control here
in America, this is the same thing done in China for "population control".
And eugenics in Nazi Germany, but that analogy bothers the pro-choice crowd.
Look, I am quoting messages!

Simon


Simon
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6892 alt.activism.d:3658 alt.politics.elections:15687 alt.politics.bush:8236 alt.politics.clinton:9135 talk.politics.misc:50374 talk.abortion:41435
From: William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:15:40 GMT
 <1992Oct6.170405.6878@nwnexus.WA.COM> 
 <1992Oct6.222643.17181@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Oct7.165702.18719@nwnexus.WA.COM>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Oct7.165702.18719@nwnexus.WA.COM>
jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

> Like I said before, apparently not clear enough for some people to get...
> Give me an alternative to abortion that stops a pregnancy and we'll
> discuss it.
> 
> Jennifer

Jennifer, I have a simple question for you.

Suppose your mother, when she was pregnant with you, decided that
pregnancy and childraising was too much of a burden and decided to,
instead, terminate her pregnancy. You wouldn't be here! If my mother
did so, neither would I!

That's the biggest reason why abortion should be banned. People are
*resources*, not "parasites" or "endless stomachs," as some of you on
the net have claimed. If you don't agree with that statement, throw
yourself off a roof right now -- human life is, in your opinion,
worthless.

--------------------------------------------
William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
-- Ronald Reagan
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7062 alt.politics.bush:8582 alt.politics.clinton:9643 alt.politics.elections:16050 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6642 talk.politics.misc:50811
From: lanier@acpub.duke.edu (Dustin Lanier)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: More deception from your hero, not mine
Date: 10 Oct 92 23:54:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Oct7.210623.7130@wixer.cactus.org> reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.030042.16802@cbnewse.cb.att.com> harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm) writes:
>>Tell us, what is conservatism as a philosophical viewpoint for you?

This is a question I have been having recently ... there seem to be a lot of 
splinter factions that are all labeled conservative ... the most clear contridiction
to me is the relgious right that wants to push family values with the classic
conservate that thinks the government should stay out of the lives of individuals.
I have been trying to come up with a more specific term for an economic conservative
that wants to help poor own their own property and have opportunities to improve
themselves without spending kabillions in wasteful government programs.  As we are
all basically politically literate, or else we would not waste our time here, I would
be able to say I'm a Kemp conservative, who describes himself as a bleeding heart
conservative ... any ever given any thought to a more specifying term? like
moderate conservative, or progressive conservative?  I can't find one I like, so
if any of you out there consider yourselfs conservative but not hard line and have
a nifty phrase please share it cause its driving me batty :)

P.S. no leftist flames bitte :)

Dustin Lanier
lanier@acpub.duke.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: what did Rush do in the 60's and 70's??????
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:18:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.155402.27444@anasazi.com> john@anasazi.com writes:
>Keywords: 
>
>In article <1992Oct05.215326.4453@gator.rn.com> Ted.Schafer@bbs.rn.com (Ted Schafer) writes:
>>    my real point after all that b.s. is that if was as brave as he
>>seem to think other should be why didn't join back then.I guess like
>>so many people of that age he justed didn't want to spend two of the 
>most productive years of life in the service.And let me tell you next
>
>He also (conveniently, pehaps) was 4F for some physical reason (I think).
>On the other hand, he doesn't claim to have been brave, and he also
>didn't participate in the anti-war movement.

Rush has a pylonydal cyst (sp?) which disqualified him for the draft. I 
doubt that too many people with such a cyst consider it to be very 
convenient at all.

As to the years after high school being the most productive of your life,
the only people I can readily think of to whom this would apply would 
be Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak, and other wunderkids. For most, however, 
the post-high school years are still a learning experience whether you
are working or in college. As for myself, one of my biggest regrets is 
that I did not join the military after graduating high school in 1974. I 
sure would have grown up a lot faster, and I dare say that this would 
have been true for most of my freshman and sophomore classmates.

-- 
John Switzer               | Why am I voting for Clinton? Because... 
                           | Bill Gates: 36, CEO Microsoft, $6 billion
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Me: 36, Tech Writer, 1978 Diesel Rabbit
jrs@netcom.com             | Screw the nerdy rich! (at least 'til I get there)
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Insensitive to human suffering
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:15:50 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct15.231139.15303@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>
>Rush Limbaugh:  You are an insensitive, hate-monger.
>
>Making fun of the homeless.  What a man!!
>Making fun of native americans.  What a humorist!!
>Making fun of people with AIDS.  What a celebrity!!
>
I see no problem here   :-)  :-)

TerraDittos!!

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:06:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.084801.7428@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Oct12.040509.9447@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>><1992Oct11.010544.21220@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>><1992Oct10.051024.29239@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>><BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) :
>>>...
>>>>As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
>>>>future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
>>>>and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
>>>>then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
>>>>against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....
>>>
>>>We'll see your truncheons and raise you fully automatic weapons.  We'll
>>>get you to your god that much faster. :-)
>>>
>>Well, I plan to depict the riot police being fully armed, and using
>>white posphorus instead of tear gas.  Now, since in my story assulting
>>police officers, especially pulling guns on them, would be a capital offense,
>>those who escaped would either face on the spot execution,or the death penalty
>>after trial.  f course, this would all be televised, to make examples of the
>>criminals.   Now, let's see the book buring the PC crowd would stage.
>
>Is this some more of those "family values" the alleged pro-life
>Republicans are talking about?  "on the spot execution", "death penalty",
>and all for just standing around an abortion clinic.  Damn, Jesus would be
>proud.
>
>No, just a proposed work of "futuristic" fiction.  Not reality, although
I get the feeling that some people here think it is real.

Simon
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Insensitive to human suffering
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:58:18 GMT
Organization: IBM Rochester
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <92290.28077.J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
[stuff deleted]
|> That last sentence was the Reader's Digest condensed version of Karl Marx.
|> Pick it up at bookstores in Havana, Beijing, and Berkeley.

What's wrong with Berkeley.  I can get it here in Minnesota.
Does that make Minnesota a communist hotbed?  I doubt it.
It's called freedom of the press.  Get used to it.
 
|> And *who* is defining what a PROBLEM is?  And *who* decides how it should be
|> SOLVED?  I'm doing things which I consider solutions, but you wouldn't like
|> them, since the recipient has to help him/herself to some degree.  What a
|> horribly insensitive thought!

I am all for people helping themselves, because I have seen
what welfare can do to a person.  I also have seen what two
years without a job can do to a person.  The point is is that
you are DOING SOMETHING that might help people.  Rush isn't.
He does nothing towards a solution, not even proposing ideas.
Rush just criticizes anything that frightens him.


Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Comparing Rush and Bob Grant.
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:55:54 GMT

yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes:
>For all the WABC listeners out there,  I would like to hear your
>thoughts about comparing Rush and Bob Grant.  

    I'm not a listener of WABC Bob Grant has sat in for Rush on occasion 
and I have a couple thoughts about Bob.

>Personally, I find Bob Grant more entertaining and less pompous.

    Hmmm. I would certainly agree that Bob Grant is less pompous, but I 
would hardly call him entertaining. At least on the occasions I've heard 
him on Rush's show I found Grant to be abrasive, abusive and generally 
impolite; practically a conservative Larry King.

>I like Bob's way of making it sound like he is being forced to 
>continue the show and that each caller is one less caller that
>he has to take.  As if he is filling a quota.

    I guess maybe Bob is more amusing when he has better control over the 
format, but I just can't imagine listening to him on an extended basis for 
enjoyment.

>Does any else out there prefer Bob over Rush or am I all alone in this?

    As far as I'm concerned you're on your own.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH: OUT OF A JOB?
Summary: The truth Hurts
Keywords: Full frontal assult
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:28:06 GMT
Reply-To: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: flyboy.ebay.sun.com

>Not really, the real reason he is popular is that he has the pulpit and
>the eloquence that most people who support his views do not.  They rally
>behind him because he gives voice to what they feel but have been denied
>due to the bias in the media.  It's like what the people did during the
>Gulf War with the yellow ribbons, they couldn't voice their support in
>any other way.  I found it and I find Rush quite refreshing.

This person speaks the truth.
In life, when you get to the truth, the people who have been hoodwinked/bamboozled/
in almost all cases respond in a pure defensive mode, just like the liberals
are doing now.
Where the acid test is, is in the total lack of liberal responses to contradict
what Rush discusses to the air waves.
This man is the most feared entity in the world of liberal thinking because he
exposes the anemic thinking of the liberal mindset.
It's almost to easy for him to expose the underlying currents behind the liberal's
course of action.
When Rush Limbaugh strikes bone, as he does quite often, the so called liberal
leaders cringe and try to hide under rocks.
They make no attempt to punch holes in his comment, because they cannot!!
People who comment that Rush's ego is bigger than his belt have not taken the
time to LISTEN to what he is saying, so they resort to infantile slanderous 
remarks about his person.
If you listen to Rush, you will notice that he never slanders anybody, he doesn't
have to becuse he speaks the truth.
There is so much going on in the world of liberal thinking that has been kept
away from you and I.
The reason is that if exposed, most people would condem it!


Al Conte
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:39:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.221124.27909@news.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.210941.22964@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>>Maybe it's me, but when a baby (or a baby-to-be, whatever you'd like to
>>call it!) becomes a PARASITE, I think there's a MAJOR problem with our
>>society.
>Why? It IS a parasite. It's living off the woman in who's body it
>is living. It is damaging her body and giving her nothing  if she does
                  ^^^^^^^^

Uh, Eric, "damaging"???  Changing, certainly, but damaging?

To what are you referring?

CRS



Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:30:47 GMT

flagg@blind-lemon.cs.unlv.edu (Scott Cunningham) writes:
>Rush's show is not a forum for Republicans, a news show (though it does 
>feature current events), or an attack on the Liberals of this country.

    I see. Is that why Rush so often repeats his signature catch-phrase 
that liberalism is "heinous"? Is that why Rush's show which "has no guests" 
has recently hosted discussions with several influential Republicans 
(ncluding Bush, Quayle, Buchanan, and Bennett)?

    Is that why Rush spent several minutes in yesterday's show practically 
sputtering that he couldn't believe that a whole 2% of his Monday poll 
respondants were "stupid and idiotic" enough to say that they plan to 
vote for Clinton? Since I plan to vote for Clinton I found that segment 
more than a little insulting.

>As he has stated many, many times, his show contains nothing but HIS OWN 
>PERSONAL OPINIONS!  Why do so many of you consider this threatening?

    Maybe it's because Rush's PERSONAL OPINIONS include verbiage which 
amounts to a personal insult to my intelligence and the intelligences 
of most of my friends.

    When I hear Rush rave like that it sends little shivers up my spine.
And this guy claims that his show doesn't preach hate while telling other 
people that *they* should lighten up? Maybe I used to believe it, but 
Rush just hasn't seemed particularly jocular recently. 

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion