HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.sounds.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Digitized Sound Files
Date: 12 Apr 92 20:03:48 GMT
Article-I.D.: milestn.45
Reply-To: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Followup-To: alt.binaries.sounds.d
Organization: Milestone R/D Labs, Milw. WI

In article <1992Apr10.210906.12609@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> tmarkovi@isis.cs.du.edu (tom markovitz) writes:
>Could someone digitize and post some stuff from the Rush Limbaugh show in
>either .SND, .AU, or .VOC format? Maybe for example, his Feminazi Trading
>Card commercial......

Why not e-mail to anyone who'd care?  
Or start up your own listserver for such.


-- 
Marc Rassbach       marcr@studsys.mu.edu       If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: "Andrew C. Aiken" <aaiken@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: RESULTS of the Clinton vs. Bush Poll
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 09:24:44 -0500



You only are getting half of it, David.  He actually is concocting a
rather elaborate satire:  First, he deludes you into believing that 
he is mocking conservatism, or rather conservatives.  By doing so, he
induces you into complacency.  You become rather like a fatted calf,
ready for the slaughter.  Liberalism culminates.  The perfection of
modern liberalism is, of course, tyranny, the threat of which would
spark a widening of the conservative counter-revolution.

So, David, whose dog are you?

	It's all very sophisticated and post-structuralist, you see.
To decipher it, you must take immersion therapy in _Harper's Magazine._



Andrew Aiken

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: I tried not to get into this......
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 19:12:44 GMT

In article <58@milestn.UUCP> marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>In article <Hec7iB3w164w@gatecom.UUCP> jeffb@gatecom.UUCP (Jeff Breitner) writes:
>>I don't believe in abortion...but I believe in the right.  It's only
>>a few steps from restricting abortion to restricting other rights.
>
>Putting this in terms of rights is the best argument.  

I agree. Let's not talk about abortion any more, but to talk about
rights. However, abortion can be sighted as a specific example.

>The idea of this land is not democracy, but liberty.  The liberty to
>make choices RIGHT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL.  Why not allow people to make
>their own choice about abortion?

1) How about the men's rights? Where are they? If the man does not want
the child, and want it aborted, but the woman wants to keep it, the
man is forced to pay child support. Where is my right as a man?

2) The Constitution guarantees LIFE, Liberty and the Pursue of Happiness.
If the unborn is determined to be alive, therefore has a life of
its own, then where is it's rights?

3) I can accept that the Constitution grants Rights to all three, the
women, the men, and the unborn, but not all can be satisfied at the
same time.

Do you agree with three? If no, where is my right as a man? And where
is the unborn's right? If yes, what do we do?

>Allowing war, self defense, and capitol punishement is asking for the
>right to murder.

Given that a life will be taken anyway, it is better yours than mine.
That is what self defense is all about. If Mr. Scumbag killed your
wife (or someone very close to you) in a very brutal way, would you
want him dead? For me, I want him dead, painfully.

---
Ed
From: mindbend@gatecom.UUCP (William Moyer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: POLL: Bush versus Clinton
Keywords: Four more years
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 16:40:18 EDT
Organization: Gateway Communication Inc.

Just a Thought that poped into my head... what if Rush was to run (not that 
it would be possable...but for sake of argument...) Would you Vote for him?
 
Bill
 
Rush Heard here in Detroit
on WXYT-AM 1270
From: v026ltr5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Monty)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: POLL: Bush versus Clinton
Summary: Who would win a national election
Keywords: Four more years
Date: 6 Apr 92 05:16:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Apr6.003234.16418@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
aiesec@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (AIESEC - Ohio State) writes...
>Hi gang.  In order to get an idea of what this group of users is like, I'm 
>conducting a poll.  Who would win the election for President if it were held as
>of this date.
>                       George Bush vs. Bill Clinton

Er... just to get this straight, you want to know who we THINK will
win, not who we WANT to win or who we intend to vote for?
Is there any question here? Does anyone think that Clinton
could possibly beat Bush? Heck, I'm as far left as they come
and _I_ wouldn't vote for Clinton.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
{       Jerry Brown for President          | Matthew P. Mason        }
{           TAKE BACK AMERICA!             | SUNY Buffalo Law School }
{             1-800-426-1112               | v026ltr5@ubvms.bitnet   }
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: No murder of babies!
Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Esmond, RI  02917
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:38:19 GMT

me> Do you suggest that we charge women who suffer "spontaneous abortions" with
me> murder as well?

orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith) writes:

>Of course not.  We do not charge people with murder for things over which
>we have no real control.

Ah, but you see - some women could control whether they suffer a spontaneous
abortion or not - mainly by not abusing their body as to provide a more 
acceptable host to the fertilized egg. 

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /   I'm not a bigot,
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /    I hate everyone.
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:34:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: milestn.49
Reply-To: marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach)
Organization: Milestone R/D Labs, Milw. WI

In article <1992Apr7.164553.1083@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>In article <92097.215116JCS130@psuvm.psu.edu> <JCS130@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
<> .... deleted ...
<<I would support neither Bush nor Clinton if I had to make a choice between them
<
<You mean if I point a gun at your head and make you choose, you will
<refuse? Will you really do that?

A gun to the head to make a decision of who to vote for is NOT a choice.
And, for the record, I would still make my choice.  Gun or not.

<<             P.S.  Who would re-elect a guy with an idiot as a running mate(no,
<< I am not refering to Rush Limbo at this time)?
<Judging you by your statements, I wonder who the READ IDIOT is.

READ idiot.  Cute humor.


-- 
Marc Rassbach       marcr@studsys.mu.edu       If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: POLL: Bush versus Clinton
Keywords: Four more years
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 92 17:44:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.003234.16418@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> aiesec@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (AIESEC - Ohio State) writes:
>Hi gang.  In order to get an idea of what this group of users is like, I'm 
>conducting a poll.  Who would win the election for President if it were held as
>of this date.
>
>                       George Bush vs. Bill Clinton
>
>I am using the two most likely canditdates.  I have omitted H. Ross Perot for 
>the simple fact that he is still not legally registered to vote in all fifty 
>states, and he would naturally pull voters from all idiological views.  So just
>answer Bush or Clinton.  Results will be posted next Sunday night, in one week.
>Thank you.
>
>Ryan C. Scharfy
>Buckeystate dittohead

First of all, this newsgroup isn't an appropriate place for this
poll. People in this group are too biased in this issue (I think).
Secondly, I think if Perot gets into the race, Bush will get the
most electoral votes, but Clinton will be the next President, thank
you Misrepresentative for making another BIG MISTAKE.

Ed
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: clmn@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: No murder of babies!
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:29:36 GMT
Reply-To: clmn@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Department of Economics

Can't this discussion be moved to talk.abortion?

-- 
Bill Coleman
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Subject: Re: Poll John Gotti vs. Bill Clinton
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 92 05:00:51 GMT

In article <1992Apr8.213123.8157@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>
>Speaking of polls, WLS in Chicago ran a poll with the "dapper
>don" vs Clinton yesterday.  Gotti won by about 9 to 1.  Guess the
>respondents are tired of the lesser of two evils ;-{).

Or just name recognition maybe?  Did they do Gotti against Bush?

-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
From: jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush on Donahue
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:00:10 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Apr13.212005.3804@iscsvax.uni.edu> snyder3338@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>Does anyone out there know if that Donahue show that Rush is on,  was on today
>or when will it be on????  I'm anxious to see it.  Is it all Rush Limbaugh or
>others also????
>
>Dittos-
>
>Jeff Snyder

The show was taped live yesterday at about 3 pm (?) EST.  It may be carried
today on your local station.

To the Rush fans in San Antonio, he will be on KENS TV, Channel 5 at 4 pm.


-- 
========================================================
"It hit me like a hammer!" --Huey Lewis
Reach me at:  jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu
========================================================
From: edanlx3@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Wayne Harris)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: No murder of babies!
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:14:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: lims01.13APR199217145074
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

>We go to war for noble causes, where the payoff is much greater
>than the possible loss of some (possibly large number) lives. We

	If the death of a human can be justified in ANY way, who makes that
distinction?  What are the grounds for justified killing.  
Just to play devil's advocate, what about the financial well-being of 
a single parent, is that "payoff" enough?   No?  How about that of the 
welfare system.  Still say no?   Okay.   How about this for this for
a noble cause.   World population.    Somehow,  someway, it is going
to need to drop off.  We can let entire populations die out (Ethiopia),
or we can institute some serious birth control methods.   Now keep in mind
that being the civilized humans that we are, we do not even let the latter
happen to beasts.  Regularly we shoot deer lest they starve.  It's more
"humane"  

My point is, if you are going to get up on the moral soapbox, you MUST be 
consistent.  To say there is ANY excuse for killing someone you imply 
a life or death decision by another human.

As for me  ---   PRO-CHOICE all the way.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot for President
From: ford@husc8.harvard.edu (Liam Ford)
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:55:30 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Apr6.174727.22494@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>In article <1992Apr3.140422.6366@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> "Andrew C. Aiken" <aaiken@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>In <1992Apr3.002006.25444@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>>
>>>How can there be too much democracy? The last thing I want is to
>>>have our INCOMPETENT govern on my back. I really don't want them
>>>to screw my life up any more. If you want less democracy, try
>>>China. Russia is not as "good" now.
>>
>>	But the government is on your back because of too much democracy.
>
>Are you a Communist? You are the only one that I've seen to use the
>word Democracy to mean Freedom of the Government and not Freedom of
>the People.
>
>Ed

Well, you should read up on your political theory then, Ed.  One book you
might take a look at is F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," which develops
the theme of democracy's possible dangerous effects upon freedom.  Also good
are the Federalist Papers, by Madison, Hamilton and Jay, and Hayek's
"The Constitution of Liberty."       

The American Government was founded as a democratic Republic with a 
_written_ Constitution precisely because the founders recognized that
in order to have limited government and preserve freedom, the powers of 
government must be circumscribed.  With an unlimited democracy in which
the majority can vote for whatever "laws" it wants, freedom can become a
secondary concern, behind comfort and (as we see in today's U.S.) pork-
barrelling.  If people want the government to do more and more for them,
then an inevitable tradeoff results.  That is, people gain certain entitle-
ments at the expense of certain freedoms.  Or they gain certain entitlements
at the expense of the freedom of those whom they are able to control using 
the power of their democratic government.

Liam T. A. Ford					ford@husc.harvard.edu
"I didn't come here to play guessing games."	--Humbert Humbert
						In Lolita [the movie]

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: RESULTS of the Clinton vs. Bush Poll
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 23:45:31 GMT

173@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Organization: The Ohio State University
Cc:
Bcc:


Would the thin skinned users of this newsgroup please stop e-mailing me their 
stupid reasons for not liking the poll.  I don't really care what you think.  
Why don't you make a poll tailored to you desires by yourself.  I'm not ZOLTAR 
THE POLLMASTER.  Some people.

R. Scharfy
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush and the politics of envy
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:50:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: CERIS.1992Apr7.175018.26725
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <1992Apr3.152220.604@nynexst.com>, by em@nynexst.com (Edward Man):
> In article <1992Apr3.014817.10456@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr3.001222.25380@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
>>
>>>You missed the point completely. The point is that Congresspeople
>>>use their positions to get rich; and ordinary citizens have to work
>>>or take risk and hope to get rich. The rich have to invest; high
>>>risk, high return, if there is any return at all. What do those
>>>bums in Congress do? They only show up, have dinner, say hello,
>>>and get tens of thousands of dollars. What do they risk?
>>
>>	I wonder does this catagorization include the President,
>>or does he have to work for a living?
> 
> I don't object to their base pay (the President's and the
> Congresspeople's). I object to they use their power (at least
> while they're still in official) to make money, especially the
> so called speech fees, etc. It's basically bribe money. I want
> to see PAC banned; speech fee limited to a very low number, if
> not banned; salary should be determined by their performance,
> they don't get a budget in time, they don't get paid, just like
> the other federal employees; they don't balance the budget, they
> don't get a raise, just like private corporations. The same applies
> to the President. Let's lump them together. Yes, it does sound like
> unionization, but what's the alternative.
>

Better yet, since they want to take credit for the economy when
things are going good, why not a wage cut when economic criteria
are bad?
 
> As for the President, for the amount of responsibility that he has,
> I think he is underpaid. But given our "situation," I have no
> objection to leave his pay at the current level.
>

I tend to agree. 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas More)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: No murder of babies!
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 17:54:23 GMT

In article <50@milestn.UUCP> marc@milestn.UUCP (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>In article <1992Apr12.000641.7869@news.unomaha.edu> KKRUEGER@Zeus.unomaha.edu (Kurt R. Krueger) writes:
>To be morally consistant on this you need to also not only support the
>anti-abortion position, but also the anti-capitol punishment AND the
>anti-war position BECAUSE killing IS killing.

No, capitol punishiment is a punishment for someone who's committed
a crime. What crime did the unborn commit? The only crime is being
unborn, if you call that a crime.
We go to war for noble causes, where the payoff is much greater
than the possible loss of some (possibly large number) lives. We
must consider the consequences if we do go to war. If I don't kill
you then you'll kill me, then you know what I must do, regardless
whether I want to kill.

>Throwing 'God' into the equation is intresting.  In the 1400's the 
>church allowed 'death by exposure' aka the baby was born and left 
>outside to die.  And in 1967, the catholic church had no official 
>position on abortion.  If the 'Word of God' is so written in stone
>and the church is the offical interperter, then why the change?

Agree. Religion should not be part of the debate. I reject all
religious arguments. Some of my believes may be the same as the
Church's. That's because it's common sense. Like tho shall not kill.
I won't accept "the Church says ..."

>And the final thing is there are a number of people who do not 
>consider a first or even second trimester fetus human.  If something
>is not human and life is stopped on that something, how can it 
>be murder of a human?

I do believe most Doctors believe life starts at conception (does
anyone have numbers?). Doctors are certainly the most qualified to
make this judgment.

---
Ed
From: reedcg@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Subject: Re: POLL Bush vs Clinton
Reply-To: reedcg@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:37:23 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.034826.17257@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, aiesec@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (AIESEC - Ohio State) writes:
>Remeber to vote.  Send in your reply.  Who would you vote for in the election.
>
>                           Bush vs. Clinton
>
>No third party candidates please.
>It's day 5/6 at midnight and so far I have 29 responses.  I know we have more 
>viewers than that.  Send in your opinion now.  Thanks.
>
>Ryan C. Scharfy
>Buckeystate Dittohead

I have to vote for Bush.  He may not be the best, but he won't be beaten by a
Democrat.  There just isn't one in the race that can beat him.

CGR (reed@cma.rose-hulman.edu)



Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nathan engle <nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Abortion Again! (was Re: I tried not to get into this......
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 10:51:51 -0500

    Well Susan, I appreciate your efforts to stay out of this discussion. In
fact, I'm also trying to stay out of it (which is why I'm going to go ahead 
and post too).

In article <1992Apr13.034735.12042@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> 
sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
>Just wondering if it matters to all you abortionists that in 1972 a child was 
>born after 22 weeks of pregnancy.  He is alive and well today.

    I wasn't aware that we actually had any abortionists reading this
newsgroup. I know that we have plenty of people who believe that
abortion should remain as a legal option, but I don't think they can
technically be termed "abortionists" since they don't personally perform
abortions. I also support the death penalty, but that doesn't make me an
executioner.

    Personally, I'm glad to hear that the 5-month premature child is alive
and doing well, but it doesn't change my position.

-- 
Nathan Engle             Software Juggler
Indiana University       Dept of Psychology
nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Men Are Not Cost Effective
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 04:43:04 GMT

.correct
Organization: The Ohio State University
Cc:
Bcc:
In article <VReZiB2w164w@gatecom.UUCP> you write:
>jxxl@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil writes:
>
>>
>>   Excerpted from Napa Writer Blames Maleness for Crime
>>   by Ron Sonenshine
>>   San Francisco Chronicle (April 6, 1992)
>>   --
>>   A Napa author has filed another salvo in the battle between the sexes,
>>   arguing in a new book that the nation's annual $300 billion crime tab
>>   is exclusively a masculine problem for which men alone should pay.
>>
>>   perhaps through a special tax.
>>
>>   According to Stephenson, women outnumber men in only two of 25 crime
>>   categories listed by the U.S. Department of Justice--runaways and
>>   prostitution.
>>
>>   "Boys are just geared for action," she said. "That's the testosterone."
>>   --
>And people wonder where "blonde" jokes come from....gads.  Betcha
>she'd be a *real* fun date!
>
>That's ok.  I'll get her with my proposed tax on dumb people.  After
>all, they leach off the productivity of others and slow the nation
>down because other people must pick up after them.
>
><Disclaimer:  If you take any of this seriously, get a life!>
>


(Thank Saturday Night Live for the following)

But your discriminating against one of the most discriminated groups.  The 
incompatent.  Whey should they be ridiculed?  They can't defend themselves.  
Your very mean.

Ryan C. Scharfy
Buckeyestate Dittohead
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.sounds.d,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: tmarkovi@isis.cs.du.edu (tom markovitz)
Subject: Rush Digitized Sound Files
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 21:09:06 GMT

Could someone digitize and post some stuff from the Rush Limbaugh show in
either .SND, .AU, or .VOC format? Maybe for example, his Feminazi Trading
Card commercial......
From: snyder3338@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: <None>
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:15:19 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

I think everyone knows that neither candidate is creating too much excitement. 
But you have to look at it this way - Either you go 180 degrees downhill with
Clinton or you take Bush and only turn 90 degrees downhill...

Praying for '96....

Jeff Snyder

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh