HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:23:47 GMT

popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:

>huh? Now behave yourself and keep your trash-mouth shut OK?  No 
>slandering good men without good cause.

I trust you'll follow your own advice.

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Sex Education in Public Schools
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 20:52:56 GMT


(comments about obscene books used for sex-ed deleted)

Reading this made me wish that 'Farenheit 451' was real.

'Burn the books, chop up the ashes, then burn the ashes'
                                       quote from '451'

Simon
From: dodsonsl@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:16:13 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <C0FGtF.I7F@unix.portal.com>, mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
> Nathan Engle (nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu) wrote:
> 
> But from what you write, you obviously either believe the men to be guilty
> before they've been proven guilty or you believe them to have been proven
> guilty (beyond a shadow of a doubt :).  If Reagan is guilty, charge him
> with a crime, or leave him alone.  Same is true for all the rest.  Quit trying
> to stick bullshit petty crimes on these guys.  If lying to congress is all
> they're guilty of, this whole investigation was a waste of time.

Some of them WERE proven guilty. They didn't just lie to Congress, they broke
the law that restricts aiding the contras (except for humanitarian aid). 
Making a deal with the terrorists wasn't illegal, although Reagan incessantly
claimed that no deals would be made with them, however, aiding the contras is.
I guess Republicans believe, as Richard Nixon said, "If the president does it,
it's not illegal."

> 
> : > I guess things will be pretty boring scandal-wise now that the
> : >party of the 'moral right' won't be in charge anymore.
> : 
> :    Don't count on it. Remember Billy Carter?

What did Billy Carter do? I remember something about him urinating on an
airport runway. Is this what you're talking about? The scandals I referred
to have more to do with Iraqi bank loans and the cover-up of the investigation
(Iraq-gate), the background check into Clinton's passport record (Tamposi-
gate), etc.

-Scott
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Debate in a Vacuum!
Date: 4 Jan 93 19:11:01 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland) writes:

> (the next line for hotheads only)
> READ THE WHOLE THING BEFORE YOU FLAME

Aw, hell, you're looking to take all the fun out of arguing. :)

> 2)  "Illiberal Education"  Dinesh D'Souza
>      (The politics of race and sex on campus)

I read this one. Found it interesting, though not surprising. Having
been exposed briefly to the lock-step political thinking of American
adademia, I found it to confirm my thinking.

I'm not sure whether to be outraged or not at the pitiful joke that
passes for education in this country: On one hand, the fact that the
schools turn out such illiterates makes people like me much more
valuable to employers. On the other hand, I hate to see someone lose
their ambition because they're filled with the thought that they're
downtrodden, unwanted, useless, and have not a chance against the Great
White Evil.

Bill Buckley's column today was funny; He says that Clinton, once an
advocate of school reform is now bought and paid for by the United
Federation of Teachers, et al., and now feels that school reform could
be damaging, to which Buckley says "Damaging the schools would be the
greatest excersize in redundancy imaginable, on the order of revisiting
Hiroshima one day later and dropping a few hand grenades."



--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke
From: ryanm@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: alt.conservative.forum
Date: 12 Jan 1993 19:47:42 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: hardy.u.washington.edu
Keywords: new news groups

In article <unhealth.726544151@mcl> unhealth@mcl.ucsb.edu (Kristian Dunn) writes:
>In <C0FzEu.JvK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>
>
>>  Several days ago I saw the suggestion to create a new news group for 
>>conservative discussion.  I would like to reiterate this idea, because this
>>news group really should be for discussions of what Rush has to say.  I do
>>not get to hear his radio show, and would like to catch up on what has been
>>said without sifting through a large number of postings about other worthy
>>ideas.  I would definately subscribe to the new group, and it would help
>>everyone.
>
>Mega Dittos Dude!
>You are exactly right, but I was thinking of something along the lines of 
>alt.right.wing or something like that because GOD told me so! No but seriously,
>I think it would be a terrific idea, but it would get dull after a while if 
>there were no liberals brave enough to argue against the subscribers and post-
>ers.
>					Kristian Dunn
>
>By the way, look for my article "The right winger has repented" in alt.skinheads
>it is a very funny anecdote!
>:x


I agree also.  I enjoy arguing with the liberals.  It would allow me to
open a few new hot ones :)  --Ryan

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  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!!!!!
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bush's Pardons
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:19:25 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <C0oz35.BGs@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>
>Who says justice shouldn't be equal, except for you?  Let's see Walsh bring
>his charges against Reagan and/or Bush and let's get it on.  In the mean time,
>those YOU would choose to let go unpunished deserve the same "fair" justice.
>That's all we are asking for and commenting about.

Unless you can find a quote from a previous message of mine in which I say
that X, Y or Z should go unpunished, then I contend you are talking though
your hat and making groundless accusations.

The gauntlet is thrown. Find the quote from me where I advocate allowing
law breakers to go unpunished, or stop putting words into my mouth that
were never there.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.forum)
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:53:13 GMT

In <1993Jan7.160030.1478@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>In article <2155@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
>> 
>>  From 1983 to 1990 "The Seven Fat Years" we experienced the longest 
>> peace time economic expansion and the longest general economic expan-
>> sion since the Kennedy Tax Cuts in the 60's. What happened in 1990 to
>> 1992 was due to the 1990 Budget compromise.

>Let's see if I've got this straight.  The recession started in July 1990
>because of a budget compromise that was not passed until the end of 
>September 1990, right?

Not quite. The recession started in July 1990 because of 1 1/2 years of
re-regulation and accelerated spending increases; it was deepened by
the tax hike. (Although Bush's abandonment of "no new taxes" was clear
well before the tax hike was passed.)

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.correct
From: pyotr@halcyon.com (Peter D. Hampe)
Subject: Talking bout Rush and the Great Conspiracy
Organization: Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 16:08:50 GMT

I think Rush is turning into a litmus test
for _civility_.  The boss where I work has him
on his radio, and because I'm on the floor I can't
have a headset, so I've a transistor radio in my shirt.
(Love that old fashioned technology).  What piques my
ire is that the snide responses - I guess it is a 
liberal genetic defect leaving them unable to pronnounce
"Limbaugh".  Selah.

On the Great Conspiracy: what can I say.  Listening to my
leftist coworkers (they are proud of that label, they
consider The US Government to be the fount of All Evil
in the world.  More later.)  The day after the election they
were down cast. They KNEW that the Republican Masters had
allowed Clinton to be ellected in order to have a Democrat
at the helm when they restructured the world finacial
order.

Oh well - as the old cliche has it, Conservatives think
that Liberals are wrong; Liberals think that Conservatives
are stupid.
chus
pyotr



-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Month's Panel: Us and Them - Eliminating Them.
EOF
-- 
Pyotr aka Peter D. Hampe : eka pyotr@halcyon.com
Next Month's Panel: Us and Them - Eliminating Them.
EOF
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
In-reply-to: jpsb@NeoSoft.com's message of Sun, 3 Jan 1993 16:02:41 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1993Jan03.020137.27692@jcnpc.cmhnet.org> <C0ACKI.9xw@NeoSoft.com>
Distribution: usa, world
Date: 6 Jan 93 13:26:32

In article <C0ACKI.9xw@NeoSoft.com> jpsb@NeoSoft.com (Jim Shirreffs) writes:

>   [Lots of interesting stuff deleted to get to MY point :)]

>   Secular morality is obeying the laws (criminal) that govern our 
>   society. These laws where legislated by *our* representatives. If a group 
>   feels this laws infringe on their rights then an appeal to the counts
>   is an effective recourse. Organizing into special interest groups so 
>   as to effect change at legislator level is also popular.  The bottom
>   line is that secular morality is defined in criminal law statues, and 
>   represents the will of society. The contractual agreement
>   between the people and government represents the collective wisdom
>   of many generations. Breaking this contract
>   (the law) is preaching the trust between an individual and society
>   and is of course punishable. Secular reasoning has been that sodomy 
>   (butt f*****g) is immoral, that is why there are laws
>   against it. 

Not too long ago, Jim, there were laws prohibiting merchants from
doing business on Sunday.  Do you maintain that there was a secular
reason for this, representing the collective wisdom of many
generations?  If so, what reason?

The law, as a living body, is constantly subject to change.  Even
strict constructionists have to be influenced by prior law and the
zeitgeist, protestations to the contrary aside.

--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: What Liberals have done to us already, not what they'll do later.
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 14:22:07 GMT

J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
> Thoughtcrime Convict #12273-101 writes:
>>And it's a warning that we have unleashed more of the same for the
>>next 4 years, only this time, we are on a ride to hell with no brakes,
>>no speed limits, and no rest stops for the next 1460 days (plus 1 day
>>in leap year '96). We are going to have to hold it in for 4 years, and
>>then that 57% of Americans that voted against Clinton in '92, will
>>pick up the other 43% and vote for Kemp in '96.

>As a Kemp supporter myself, I'd like to state that I know of very few Kemp
>supporters who has the attitude of this one.

>In short, Jack Kemp is *nothing* like the writer of the message to which I
>reply.  I hope you remember that in 1996.

    Hey, I'll remember. I just wish that Kemp had been in the running 
this past time around. Then maybe Chaney wouldn't be pissing and moaning 
so much.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Text of the CO Gay Discrimination Provisions Ammendment
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 6 Jan 93 16:35:02 CST


In article <6JAN199315063249@zeus.tamu.edu>, rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
> For them that cares, here's the text of the CO Gay Discrimination Ammend- 
> ment:
> 
> NO PROTECTED STATUS BASED ON HOMOSEXUAL, LESBIAN OR BISEXUAL ORIENTATION.
> 
>   Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments,
>   nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school
>   districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statue, regulation, ordinance
>   or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct,
>   practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of,
>   or enable any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority
>   status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination.
> 
>   This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.

I wonder if anyone would object to adding heterosexual to the list of 
homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation?

If this amendment does not discriminate against homosexuals, lesbians or 
bisexuals, there should be no problem adding heterosexuals to the list.

-- 
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: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: Colorado Amendment 2
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:22:42 GMT

mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>: 
>: 
>: If voting for laws that stops the process of people losing rights and 
>: being treated as second class citizens is "Radical Liberalism", then 
>: B'God, let's have more of it!  More Rights for everyone, or........?
>: 

>Laws won't change anything.  Laws protecting blacks have only allowed a
>small percentage any real success, and all statistical evidence is that
>blacks do live like 2nd class citizens.  I can start with unemployment
>rats, income, and health statistics to prove it.  

Actually, the more legal rights a group has the less tolerant the general 
public tends to be.  Two examples:  (1)  America has much less restrictive
abortion laws than in Europe; however, Europe is much more tolerant of unwed
mothers.  (2)  The Americans with Disabilities act requires a large number
of handicapped parking places at new facilities, and I have heard a large
amount of grumbling from people about the excess spots ( also noticed more
non-handicapped using handicapped spots ).  The general feeling is 'well,
you have your rights and will get nothing more' when rights are legislated.
The black community is just one example of 'rights' gone astray.

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12167 talk.politics.misc:67037
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 13:52:36 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Abortion is poverty control, to some extent.

In article <unhealth.726544894@mcl>, unhealth@mcl.ucsb.edu (Kristian Dunn) says:

>        Republican Anglo-Danish Male. But one of my only bones of content with
>        Rush, is his inability to understand that abortion should be tolerated
>        since it kills many more children that would likely live in ghettos,
>        commit crime, and then become fourth generation welfare recipients!
>        [...]

I think this is a joke.  I sure hope it is.

'Illustrating absurdity by being absurd?'

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Subject: Re: Rush and the Clinton Inauguration
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:16:38 GMT

In article <nate.1022@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>    Anybody got any good theories about why Rush is being so coy about 
>his invitation to the Clinton Inauguration? I realize that the idea of 
>the Clinton presidency sort of galls him, but I would have thought that 
>the experience would provide him with hours of anecdotes for his radio 
>show. He could probably deduct his travel as a business expense, and I 
>doubt that it could be any more difficult for him to cope with than the 
>Donahue show. I have a couple of ideas about possible motivations for 
>him playing "hard-to-get", but I'm curious to hear what people around 
>here think.
>


This one is easy. Rush is afraid that if he were actually to
listen to what Clinton has to say, he would find out that Clinton
isn't such a bad guy after all. What would he do then for the 
next 4 years?

I wonder what Rush thinks of the rumors that Reagan voted 
for Clinton?

Robert Johnston
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: So, anyone want to talk about Rush Limbaugh around here?
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 03:10:48 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

> mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
> >...my killfile is huge.
> 
>     Mine is not, but this morning I really kind of regret it.
> 
>     I've paged through almost 200 articles and this is the first one to 
> even make a token attempt to talk about Rush (Yeah, Michael!).
> 
>     Just for the record, let me state that I'm really, really bored with 
>         1) the "Gays in the Military" thread
>         2) the "Sexuality/Lifestyles" thread
>     and 3) everything to do with Steve Chaney (the new cross-post king)
> 
>     At this point I can only hope against hope that the people who have 
> been sustaining those tired old topics will find new interests once the 
> new semester starts. Thank heavens Rush will be back on the air in 24 hours 
> and 15 minutes.
> 
> --
> Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
> Psychology Department               Indiana University
> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu


Well Nathan, YOU start some interesting threads here that you find 
worthy.
  If you don't, don't bitch because there is nothing here ya don't like.

Pope Charles   SubGenius Pope Of Houston

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Fri 1/8/93
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 11 Jan 1993 23:44:34 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc.
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
NNTP-Posting-Host: chezmoto.ai.mit.edu

What a show. With his marvelous discourse on science, Rush has proved, once
again, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. What I can't figure
out is how someone so big can have such a small amount of knowledge. I
suppose he'll just blame the public school system.

Rush Limbaugh: A Redneck with a Radio show.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Mel Walker                                    mwalker@novell.com
All opinions expressed are of the author.
Novell, Inc. is not responsible for the content of this article.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: alt.conservative.forum
Summary: time to split off from alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 17:04:05 GMT
Keywords: new news groups

  Several days ago I saw the suggestion to create a new news group for 
conservative discussion.  I would like to reiterate this idea, because this
news group really should be for discussions of what Rush has to say.  I do
not get to hear his radio show, and would like to catch up on what has been
said without sifting through a large number of postings about other worthy
ideas.  I would definately subscribe to the new group, and it would help
everyone.  

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Just like America
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:55:18 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

Jeffrey.Thorson <Jeffrey.Thorson@mixcom.mixcom.com> writes:

> Is my count accurate?
> 
> Clinton's cabinet consists of
> all lawyers except for 1 doctor
> and 1 educator. 

Yeesh. A brainless crew as was ever assembled. Not a one of them that
realizes that all their happy policies will be putting a lot of people
on the streets.

> Note the absence of business people.

Most of us have real jobs and more dignity than that. :)



--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11569 talk.politics.misc:66273
From: gsmith@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative?  Hahaha....
Date: 5 Jan 93 15:41:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany

In article <1993Jan4.174252.10792@kadsma.kodak.com>
pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:

>>       Actually, the impression I get is that the problem with the
>>Colorado amendment is that it leaves people *too much* alone.  That
>>the government doesn't step in at the "right" times.

>My impression of the Colorado amendment is that it
>prohibits the creation of laws which forbid discrimination
>based on sexual orientation. In other words, it doesn't say 
>explicity that discrimination against gays is legal; what it
>says is that attempts to outlaw discrimination against gays
>is illegal, which in practical terms amounts to the same thing.

Both of your impressions are wrong.  The Colorado amendment gives
special rights to heterosexuals.  It singles out gays and lesbians
and says that they are not protected by legislation prohibiting
discrimination based on sexual orientation.  Heterosexuals are.
In arguments favoring it, people talked about outlawing the
special rights which homosexuals have, none of which exist.

The proposers argued that homosexuals should be treated like everyones
else and should not be considered a minority, while at the same time
the legislation itself singles them out by giving them fewer rights
than the rest of Colorado citizens, showing rather clearly that in
fact they do constitute a discriminated-against minority.

Anyone who voted for it is either a bigot or a fool.

-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh