HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henken@ocf.berkeley.edu (Matthew J. Henken)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Date: 7 Oct 92 03:33:50 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: U. C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: headcrash.berkeley.edu


>>In article <1992Oct6.001338.27975@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says:
>
>@         It seems that he _relished_ the thought of her being sexually
>@ humiliated, which I find rather sick. Yes, sick. I think sex should be
>@ for enjoyment, not for humiliation, whatever Rush Limbaugh may think.

Perhaps the only thing less apetizing than Ted Danson giving the ecological
forcast for the decade is Polly Purebread here standing before a goodly
portion of the civilized world and proclaiming not only her ideas of the
purpose of sex, but declaring her contempt for those who might not share
her beady-eyed perspective.

Take it to alt.sex.bigot (aliased in some systems as alt.sex.eww.that's.icky).


Matthew J. Henken
henken@ocf.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:05:48 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>Is your "people should take responsibilities for their actions" only related
>to unexpected pregnancies, 

[Taken from an ad for The American Spectator]
In Mississippi, a merry band of bureaucrats tries to "solve" a small town's
growing unwed mother problem...by, of course, reforming the community's
"insensitivity" toward unwed teenage mothers.

> or to everything in life?  I only ask because
>we, as a rule, DON'T take responsibility for our actions in general. 

In Virginia, a female doctor, arrested on suspicion of drunk driving, 
screams obscenities, tries to kick a state trooper in the groin, up-ends
the Breathalizer table, fails the sobriety test...and is found innocent
due to PMS.

Yep, it looks like I've got to agree with you -- people don't want to
take responsibility for their actions.
-- 
Dan Griffin                     Abort the whales with a nuclear handgun.
griffin@egr.msu.edu             
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: jcburt@cs.wm.edu (John Burton)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: The College of William and Mary
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:22:08 GMT

In article <1ad9meINNbkq@bigboote.WPI.EDU> jseaver@arkose.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.195132.6469@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>>>  Question for you, Erik: what do you suppose made this woman desperate
>>>>  enough to risk her life to not be pregnant?
>>
>>> That is missing the point.
>>
>>That is evading the question.  Try again?
>>
>>> If she really could not afford (not monetarily speaking) to become
>>> pregnant, she shouldn't have risked pregnancy by having sex.
>>
>>I wasn't aware that death was an appropriate consequence for having sex.
>
>	No, death isn't.  Having a child, however, IS.
>
>	Very, VERY few people would complain about abortion when the mother's
>life is in danger.  However, if the woman is pregnent through voluntary sex...
>Well, you could say she's committed herself.
>
>						-Jay

Hmmm...interesting point, IF (notice it's a big if)  the folks
engaging in sexual activities were actually aware of ALL the
consequences of their actions, and the possible alternatives. There
are many people out there that believe that they are not going to
get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) because they are practicing
birth control such as the rhythm method, or premature withdrawl, or
douching with a coke, or countless other methods. One thing many
people do not have is accurate information regarding sex, and
the associated risks and responsibilities. Can you say education?
Many parents (primarily christian fundamentalist) are up in
arms trying to remove sex education from school curriculum. 
Many folks are trying to get rid of Planned Parenthood (whose
primary task is to EDUCATE people about sex). Lets see, you
get rid of all publicly available sex education, you get rid
of abortion (even when the mother's life is in danger, as many
pro-lifers suggest). Hmmmm...I hope all those pro-lifers and
christian fundamentalist have plenty of room at their houses
and plenty of extra cash for welfare, because you will see
a MAJOR increase in unwanted pregnancies, with a large portion of the
babies going on welfare or up for adoption. The current welfare
and adoption services are massively overloaded as it is, and
you want to significantly increase the load??? can you spell
chaos ?

John
From: ccohen+@pitt.edu (Caleb N Cohen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Clinton/Gore on Rockline, Oh Ah...
Summary: Dem voter registration material is a waste of life
Keywords: clinton, gore, democrat, rockline, youth, drug addicts, inhale, nra
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:41:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: ccohen@unixd2.cis.pitt.edu

Friends,

  Just some food for thought (ie some meat to tear into...)

	Caleb

------------------

Newsgroups: clari.news.hot.clinton,clari.news.gov.usa,clari.news.election,clari.news.politics.people,clari.news.demonstration
Subject: Clinton and Gore appear on call-in show in bid for youth vote
Keywords: usa federal, government, election, politics,
	political personalities, nonviolent demonstrations, demonstrations
Date: 2 Oct 92 08:42:07 GMT
Note: (complete writethru -- tightening)

	MADISON, Wis. (UPI) -- Bill Clinton and Al Gore wooed the youth vote
Thursday with an appearance at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a
90-minute question-and-answer session on ``Rockline,'' a national radio
program geared toward young adults.
	``We really care more about you,'' Gore told a crowd of youths during
a speech. ``Our ideas are ideas of the future. Theirs are imprisoned in
the past. We are going to need your help after the election to turn this
country around.''
	Later, on the radio call-in show, the Democrats pitched plans for
both health-care reform and a national college fund -- under which
students could borrow money for tuition, then pay it back with either a
portion of their future earnings or two years of community service.
	Dozens of UW-Madison students watched on a large-screen television as
the candidates fielded calls.
	Many booed a caller who said he belonged to the National Rifle
Association.
	The students also appeared uncomfortable when Clinton announced that
he himself hunts ducks and turkey, and supported the right to bear arms.
	However, the youths vigorously applauded when the Democrat added that
he supported the Brady Bill, which would require a waiting period and
background checks for handgun purchases.
	On abortion, Clinton announced that any Supreme Court justice he
would appoint ``ought to generally approve of the right to privacy that
includes the right to choice.''
	On the issue of rock music lyrics, Gore -- whose wife, Tipper, staged
a well-known campaign in the 1980s against obscene songs -- said: ``I'm
totally opposed to censorship.''
	And, in a remark that brought hoots of laughter from students
watching the program, he added, ``So is my wife Tipper.'' Gore said his
wife's activism had only been designed to get the music industry to
voluntarily identify records not suitable for children.
	Throughout the program, Clinton and Gore reminded listeners that many
states have an Oct. 5 registration deadline for those who want to vote
in November.
	But Louis Cohn, a 21-year-old UW-Madison student who watched the
Democrats' appearance, said the only reason he registered was because he
got a free compact disc for doing so.
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Deja Vu all over again
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:14:05 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus

In article <1992Oct5.164544.14210@dg-rtp.dg.com> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) writes:

>Whatever the merits of the argument about ozone depletion and sunburn etc.,
>teaching children to be afraid of the sky is not a moderate position.  We teach
>children to look both ways before crossing the street.  We don't teach them to 
>be afraid of cars.  We can teach children to be careful of the sun, or a good
>sunburn will do it for us, but we don't need to engage in fear-mongering.  Al
>Gore believes in fear-mongering, and this statement is an example of it:  

"We have to tell our children that they must redefine their relationship with
 traffic, and they must begin to think of the cars as a threatening part of 
 their environment."

	Works for me.
-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992
From: tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush burns Hillary, and other things...
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:35:59 GMT
Organization: Unisys, Applied Technology, Malvern, PA

In article <1992Sep30.185734.13463@src.honeywell.com> skwarek@src.honeywell.com (Tom Skwarek) writes:
>
>In all sincerity please educate me on the Vietnam draft. If Clinton had 
>an undergrad degree, wasn't he eligible for the draft? Was grad school 
>an exemption from the draft? ...

It was if you're livin' in Oxford and Moscow.

-- 
Tom Albrecht
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: "Liberals" and the Drug War
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: world,usa,na,alt
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 00:44:48 GMT

In article <w39nl+k.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:

- Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show

- for Tuesday, September 22, 1992

- MORNING UPDATE

- In a second story, the LA Times reports that liberals are
- opposing the LAPD's implement of President Bush's war on drugs.
- The liberals fear that the programs will result in civil liberty
- violations and the imprisonment of many minorities. So even
- though the cities are full of hell holes that are related to the
- drug trade, the police can't do anything about it because their
- actions "might" lead to civil rights violations.

- Thus, the government is supposed to reward gangs for not killing
- each other, but is also required to ignore the drug problem
- because too many criminals who just happen to be minorities might
- go to jail, maybe. "You see, government doesn't kill the human
- spirit, folks," Rush states, "liberals do. But wait - maybe it's
- the same thing?"

This is the same old typical Rush crap.  WHAT liberals?  WHO said
that?  Does it come to this blowhard as an impossible concept that
just MAYBE there are more than TWO points of view on any particular
topic? 

His show is NOT a news program...it's an anti-"liberal" program.  His
agenda has nothing to do with news.

--
Andrew Werling on Planet Yip    awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"Get out your cross and dance!"  --Gruntruck, "Crucifunkin'"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:21:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.011858.13643@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>	[Rush denegrades Madonna, deleted]
>
>This shouldn't be surprising to anyone, after all, Madonna makes more money
>then Rush, is better looking then Rush, can sell more books, records, videos
>then Rush, and isn't even as old as he is. By his own standards, she's more
>sucessful then he is, and I'm sure it pisses him off.
>
>--
>                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
>  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
>  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992
>
While Madonna may indeed make more money than Rush Limbaugh the fact is that
her whole act is designed to ridicule traditional values.  As a result I'm
sure that she wouldnt mind that Rush considers her less than morally upright.
As a matter of fact as long as her image continues to sell records I'm quite
sure she would be grateful for the advertisement.  Now as to whether or not
a blatantly promiscuous lifestyle is something anyone should be demonstrating
in this disease ridden time is another matter.  Come to think of it, with the
book, the newsletter, the radio show and the television show I'm not so sure
that Madonna does make more money than Rush and he dosent even have to
publicly exploit himself!!
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:05:03 GMT
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <gelpRem00Voq8_wkN1@andrew.cmu.edu> rg3c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Randy Eugene Griffith) writes:

[comments about being a newbie deleted]

Hi, welcome to our little mud puddle, where we all talk about the words
and philosophy of Rush Limbaugh, spokesperson for AIB - Arrogance in
Broadcasting.   Having welcomed you nicely, let me help you get right into
the swing of things...

>
>As far as I'm concerned, I think the fact that all you people listen to
>Rush seemingly religously, even though you obviously resent the man, is
>a testament to the simple truth of his words.

Have you thought about starting alt.shallow-thinking  ??
From: jaeschcr@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The End of Rush?
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:12:05 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire



Carl R. Jaeschke, University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire.
Management of Information Systems


	I am no fan of Rush's.  I do not care for his style of
	ignorant, narrow-minded televison showmanship.

	Believe or not, I am not even an ardent liberal.

	I merely see a man who enjoys all the controversy that follows
	him.  Now he is hitting the television market in force.

	Even people who dislike his entire manner can't get enough of the
	the man...

	One simple solution.  Forget about him. Ignore him.  We, and also
	the media, will soon live without a man who can't debate an
	issue without using pseudo-conservative, All-American banter.

	Let's face it.  There are much better forums to defend the conservative
	viewpoint without subjecting ourselves to his not-so-rare
	performances of the typical late-night radio (now television)
	talk-show host.  Limbaugh and all the others extract hate and
	divisiveness in a time when we just don't need it.  How are 
	we, as a country, going to make significant strides in 
	social and economic reform with their type of prejudice.

	Rush has had his fun...

	I know I may not reach the people who think he's a living 
	conservative god.
	But I do hope that some of you who know what I am talking about
	will see that I might have some merit.

	Just don't watch him.  The people who hate him make a considerable
	amount in the t.v. ratings.

	Consider watching something else.  Crossfire on CNN?
	Think it over....all of you.




Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6102 talk.abortion:39546
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:01:02 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <1992Sep29.212344.26417@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) supports traditional family values:
>
 Family values to the P.C. crowd, Hillary clan, NOW gang, and
every bleepin' women's group in America is to maintain and 
increase THEIR economic stronghold on FAMILY COURT LAW. First
they claim to be VICTIMS of everything imaginable. Two, they 
play off the guilt of the unsuspected and three, demand to be
compensated. 
1. Affirmitive Action
2. child support guidelines that GUARENTEE a WOMEN"S standard
of living.
3. Because single mothers are poor (really? christ, how can this
be when money grows on trees?, is that why Bush hates trees, to 
keep VICTIMS from picking the fruit?) they demand that the 
government FORCE companies to provide day-care and parental leave.
Does parental leave make any goddamn sense to a single parent MORON?
4. Free government 'pre-schools'. That way, single parents can
be like rich parents, have a kid then have someone else raise it
for em'. Kinda like a nanny. 

>
>Why do I get the impression that you don't like children?
>
>Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
>           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary


 Why do you think I dislike children, because I disdain the liberal
notion that YOUR kid is YOUR problem, HER single family problem 
is HER single family problem and Government should stay the 
hell away from determining what is best for MY children.

Your CONCERN and compassion for kids is tremendous. Please send
cash, check or money order to MY children. Their names are
Steven, (who could really use your sympathy and compassion
and nontax deductable contribution for his serious abdominal
problem discovered last week at Methodist Hospital in St. Louis
Park Mn) and my daughter Mckenna, who is very healthy but 
certainly could start a savings account for college.


Jon Wood

  Formally of Mn, the DO - GOODER state, the COMPASSION STATE. 

Where else in America would a T.V. station have the call letters
KARE-TV.  The pussy whipped state of Mn, of course.
Home of nimwit Sen. Wellstone and other fine do-gooders.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Gore-Basism
Summary: Bryon's confused again, as usual.
Organization: Rice University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:53:47 GMT

In article <lcjeqcINN59g@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu> lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
>
>	A couple of years ago a list was produced that listed the 50 states
>as to were they stand on air and water pollution.  To be higher on the list
>was worse.  Number 47 was Tennessee.

So Tennessee has that good a record -- what's your point?

(Whoever did the list-compiling must have missed seeing the upper reaches of
the Holston *or* the Clinch, though...)



-- 
Patrick L. Humphrey  (patrick@is.rice.edu)  Rice Networking & Computing Systems
     +1 713 528-3626 at Rice. 776-1541 at home. 667-6554 at Palace Lanes. 
    *"The opinions expressed by Patrick do not necessarily represent those
             of Rice staff, management, or any living person."*
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Taxing the Rich (was
Date: 4 Oct 92 13:32:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

EEDIT.Correct. I didn't define "fair share". I doubt that we can arrive at a
     .consensus on it here today. Therein lies the whole problem, doesn't it?

EEDIT.Second, I'm not trying to simplify the situation, and your points are
     .definitely valid to a large degree. But it doesn't mean that gross
     .inequities are non-existent in the current system.
     .I never said: soak the rich. I said: the rich ought to happily pay
     .their fair share of taxes (just like the rest of us). There is a
     .difference, and a degree.

EEDIT.Apparently the very concept of the rich paying ANY taxes really pisses
     .some people off.

Well......I don't think that is quite what the issue is....what many of
us are tired of hearing is that raising the taxes on the rich is going
to solve all of our problems.  It always comes off sounding like so much
hype to satisfy the 'misguided masses' who consititute the bulk of the
voters.  In other words, if my neighbor has more money than I do, he
OBVIOUSLY doesn't deserve it!  If Clinton raises the taxes on the rich
as he has talked about, it would result in a barely noticeable increase
in revenues - nowhere near the revenues needed to support the largess he
purports the masses NEED to survive after these terrible Republicans
have taken away all of their 'freebies'.  :-)


Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . Hard work never killed anyone, but why chance it?
From: das@unislc.uucp (David Shorten)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Organization: Unisys Corporation SLC
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 22:27:49 GMT

Philip W. Hurley (phurley@tamu.edu) wrote:
: In article <ld1gq9INNelc@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (
: Michael Polen) writes:
: 
: >After all, what is religion for but to turn philosophical differences
: >into holy wars.
: 
: "If any man among you seem to be religious and bridleth not his tongue, but 
: deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and 
: undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and 
: widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
: 					- James 1:26-27

An excellent definition, I just wish that the "religious" institutions
that teach from the bible would attempt to foster such an attitude.

Instead they encourage regular meetings to listen to each other's unbridled
tongues, and attempt to force their own attitudes on the rest of us.

Dave S.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6312 alt.rush-limbaugh:6579
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 01:33:31 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na

In article <1992Oct6.001338.27975@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says:

>        It seems that he _relished_ the thought of her being sexually
>humiliated, which I find rather sick. Yes, sick. I think sex should be
>for enjoyment, not for humiliation, whatever Rush Limbaugh may think.

It was a joke.

To you also get offended by Helen Keller jokes, Christa McAuliffe jokes,
or blonde jokes?

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: rsteele@adam.ll.mit.edu (Rob Steele)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Ultraconservatism in the US today
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:14:44 GMT
Reply-To: rob@ll.mit.edu
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <BvIzt7.I24@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> timm@sage.cc.purdue.edu  
(Timm Knoerzer) writes:

 The extreme right appears to be growing at an exponential rate,
 leading to a reprehensible stifling of creativity, freedom,
 ingenuity, and adaptation.

Ack!  He's on to us.  Somebody kill him.
-------------------------------------------------------
Rob Steele                            rob@ll.mit.edu
MIT Lincoln Laboratory
244 Wood St., M-203           You cannot imagine
Lexington, MA  02173            how stupid I am.
617/981-2575                      --George Macdonald
From: tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Who deserves a wasted vote?
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:51:17 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <LARRY.92Sep28223551@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:

>Now, I *did* say this! 
>
>   The point is, there are lots of alternatives to not voting, which
>   is the biggest waste.
>
>I agree. I AM voting. For Clinton.. No doubt in my mind. It's the cowboy way.

But Larry, Thomas Sowell is not voting for Clinton.  Why not follow an
intellectual when you see one?

Ted K.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc