HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.forum)
Date: 20 Jan 93 19:39:40 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <90416@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>Because they know that the higher the tax rates, the more individual
>companies will be willing to pay in order to get a loophole.

 Could we call that "Greed".

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13943 talk.politics.misc:70031
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why are conservatives so stupid ?
Keywords: liberals, conservatives, intellegence
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:11:11 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C1FMr5.Fry@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>  There are a great number of regularly posting liberals who apparently think 
>that conservative = idiot.  Most of the time this is an inference; others
>say it explicitly.  Why do liberals think they corner the intelligence market?

Yes, I agree that there are some liberals who think this, but many of us do
not and recognize that there are legitimate differences in the way people
see the world.  After all, if liberals thought everything conservatives
said was stupid, why would we bother to post on the net to refute it?
If it was lunacy, it would be self-refuting.

But at the same time, you've got to admit that there are some conservatives
who say that "liberal=idiot" too.  One caller to Rush once said, "Liberals
have no common sense" or something like that.

Chris
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton
From: dlaro@lonestar.utsa.edu (David O. Laro)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:52:37 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.161725.24748@advtech.uswest.com> steven@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (John Townsend) writes:
>
>>The more interesting question right now is that, since Clinton was fully aware
>>of Baird's hypocritical disregard for the law, but decided it was OK and
>>nominated her anyway, what does that say about his own ethics and respect for
>>the law?  Should he resign too?  It's only the second day of his presidency,
>>and people are already asking "How much did Clinton know?"
>
>defended through a bitter rejection vote by Congress, Clinton felt the
>will of the people and acted immediately.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Do you really believe this?  Okay, we also want a middle
 class tax cut!  Tell him, will you.

>Besides, Bush violated the law in Iran-Gate (at the very least, lying to
>Congress), yet he took office.  He actually BROKE THE LAW HIMSELF.
>
>Whaddya think of that, John?

Actually, I think your zeal and enthusiasm have gotten you ahead of the
facts.  Mr Bush's "breaking" of the law have neither been admitted nor proven,
have they.  Alleged?   yeah!  Is that enough for you?

>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

David, and don't forget about the middle-class tax cut, will you?

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Gee, i don't Know...
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 23:43:16 GMT

mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:

>I don't have a gun, but I joined the NRA.  Just to get a sticker for my
>front door.  Just as good as having a "security system by smith & wesson"
>sticker on the door :)

Either one is about as good as having a "come inside while I'm at work
for portable goods with high resale value." sticker. 

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: markp@joplin.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:49:44 GMT

In <1k6bmsINNg34@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:

>In article <lmc1u2INNij5@ar-rimal.cs.utexas.edu> brinkley@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Brinkley) writes:
>>Well!  It oughtta be clear to anyone following this thread that things are
>>starting to heat up.

>It's always curious to me that when I begin asking hard questions, the word
>'flame' is brought into the discussion....

>I am vitally concerned that you would reduce me to a subclass of both
>citizen and human being.  And, regardless of the words you care to use, and
>the rationalization you would apply to your vote, the FACT of the matter is
>you would, in restricting abortion, reduce me, my mother, my daughters, my
>sisters, and all the women I know to less-than-people.

>It's a hard pill to swallow, Paul, but that's EXACTLY what you would be
>doing in supporting abortion restriction.  Get used to it. 

I'm sure I speak for most pro-lifers when I say that if we didn't think
abortion was murder, we would support women's right to abortion. The
REAL "hard question" here is: Does abortion unjustly take the life of human 
persons? Get used to it.

>Adrienne Regard

Mark Pundurs
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Bill's eyebrows are INVISIBLE!!!
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:36:17 GMT

subject says it all.

and Tom Foley has BIG ears that stick out :)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Read this if you are straight!
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:07:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.214250.7296@ncsu.edu> dsh@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>In article <C1E1nB.3J4.1@cs.cmu.edu> 
>garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin) writes:
>>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>> I just had an idea!  Let's all lobby to get gays recognized as a 
>>> bonified minority with special rights.  
>>> ^^^^^^^^
>
>> I know that Kreuger is just excersizing 
>>             ^^^^^^          ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I think Susan Garvin's misspelling of "exercising" and "Krueger"
>is at least as funny as Ted Krueger's misspelling of "bona fide".  
>Is anyone keeping score on this thread??   Do I win a prize??!! 
>... huh, huh??... yuk yuk... (note intentional misspelling of "yuk").

I don't want to start a flame war, and certainly don't want to start 
a flame spelling war, but 1) some people don't have a decent on-line
editor available and/or are operating a low baud rates, and 2) some
people are handicapped/disabled/whatever and have a hard enough 
time typing out recognizable sentences, much less perfect ones. 

Just something to consider before you pounce on someone who might
very well be using a pencil held between their teeth to type out 
their posts.  Of course, I'm responding to a post by someone 
who decided to send all follow-ups to misc.test, so my words will 
fall on his deaf ears to be sure, but perhaps others will find them
useful.
-- 
John Switzer             | 1/21/93 - Clinton fails to follow through on promise
                         | to have economic legislation ready the day after the
Compuserve: 74076,1250   | Inauguration. Programmers rejoice because he gives 
Internet: jrs@netcom.com | them an excuse to further slip their schedules.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.culture.african.american
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Blacks on TV (was Re: LET THE BOYCOTT BEGIN!)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 02:23:13 GMT

In article <9113@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>-Well, I think he had a point.  Give me one example of a positive black person
>-on TV
>
>Lieutenant Uhura, Commander Sisko, Lt. Jordi (sp) LeForge :: all of Star
>Trek series (pl) (original, Deep Space 9, Next Gen respectively). They
>are all very intelligent people in positions of authority. I don't watch
>Designing Women, so I can't comment on Meshach Taylor's role. Roc (Live)
>has a wonderful ensemble of actors.

My law school roommates watch a disproportionate number of legal dramas,
and I can't help but notice how (1) the majority of judges on these shows
are black, and (2) the majority of the black judges are women.  It's
pretty astonishing, once you start looking for it.  There was a black woman
judge in the Brenda Starr comic strip the other day.  In the movie version
of "Bonfire of the Vanities," they had Morgan Freeman play the role of
the crusty Jewish judge, which completely screwed up the point about
racial tensions Wolfe wanted to make by having Judge Kowalski be white.

Of course, in these cases it's just tokenism, because the shows in question
are almost completely white, but I find it amusing how much of a cliche'
it is becoming.  
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Hillary (Was: What can we expect....)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:15:08 GMT

In article <C1CAvC.LDL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> >starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>  >>Now she is comming above ground with an office in the White House
>
> >Funny, I don't recall any fuss about Mrs. Bush's office in the 
> >White House.  (The one in which she ghost wrote Millie's book.)
>
>Well, I don't recall that Ms. Bush was given the same level of power
>that Ms. Clinton has either.  

Funny, I don't recall Ms. Bush graduating at the top of her class at 
the second-best law school in the country.  :)

>Anyway I don't see what the fuss is either, but not for the reason you
>state.  Governor Clinton said from the beginning that a vote for him
>was a vote for her.  That was clearly acceptable to enough voters to
>put the two of them in the oval office.

True.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush makes _truely_ substantive points w.r.t. Clinton
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:00:54 GMT

gatortop@IASTATE.EDU (Mike W Kuenkel) writes:
>tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>      b) Hillary telling Bill what to do...
>>              If my wife heard of a problem, I would expect that she would
>>              feel free to make suggestions.  She is my closest and most
>>              trusted advisor, after all.

>>              Maybe Rush never trusted his ex-wives that way...  Maybe thats
>>              why Mr "Family Values Limbaugh" doesn't have a family.
 
>> Rush is fishing for things to say...   and I'd say he "floundered" today.

>CLEARLY ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF OF RUSH JUST BEING SATIRICAL AND ENTERTAINING, 
>AND ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT A SENSE OF HUMOR.

    Gee, I dunno. Rush gets a lot of mileage out of accusing Bill Clinton 
of being "hen-pecked", and I agree with Tom that Rush's criticisms of that 
relationship probably says more about why Rush is no longer married to 
either of his two ex-wives than it does about anything that we can expect 
from Bill or Hillary over the course of the next 4 years.

>       LIGHTEN UP!!!!!!

    Hey, Tom made a joke there... "fishing" - "floundered"... Sounded to 
me like Tom was just being satirical and entertaining. Maybe you should 
take your own advice.

    Rush also gets a lot of mileage out of calling moderates "moral cowards" 
for sitting on the fence, but I'm not sure that I see how it's that much 
different for moderates to sit on their fences than it is for Rush to make 
"inciteful and substantive" comments until somebody points out that he's 
full of fecal matter (at which point the Dittoheads turn on the commentator 
and tell him to lighten up).

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
Date: 22 Jan 93 08:00:35 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1993Jan22.021606.28451@uc.msc.edu> eab@msc.edu (Edward Bertsch) writes:
>there's a big difference between a Catholic mass and an abortion clinic.
>
>The purpose of an abortion clinic is to kill human beings, at an
>early stage of development.
>
>A Catholic mass has no such activity.

Two women each have a problem.   Each of them is troubled by something, that
if allowed to go unchecked, will severly jeapordize their future happyness.

One is suffering from a crisis of conscience (call it sin) and goes to mass.
The other is suffering from an unwanted pregnancy, and goes to the clinic.

Each institution is there to provide a service and support a persons need.

Some people say that god is a myth, and that mass is a waste of time.
Others say that a fetus is a human being, and that a clinic is tantamount
to murder. 

Neither side can conclusively prove their arguements to the satisfaction of
all listeners, although many agnostics and many anti-abortion people are firmly
convinced in their own hearts that they are right.

Personally, I believe in letting people chose to go to church, if they
wish to spend thier time doing so.
Personally, I haven't been convinced that a fetus is a human, and so I
believe in letting people chose to go to a clinic.


And finally, the catholic church might not kill people (anymore), but
many religionists go out of thier way to supress knowledge, choice,
and freedom.   While killing a human is a bad thing, I am not convinced
that killing ideas and freedoms is any less heinous of a crime.  In fact,
people regularly go to war and kill each other to defend ideas and 
freedoms, showing that many people consider human life much less sacred
than ideas and freedoms.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: joeb@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Joe Bushinski)
Subject: Re: Debt / AT&T Monopoly
Organization: USWEST Marketing Resources
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:42:20 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.200053.1930@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <C16sJG.JGw@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>......Lot's of bickering back and forth deleted.

Hey gang, it was really congress and the justice departments idea in the first
place. AT&T was to give up the telegraph business (TWX etc), which they did to
Western Union, and they were to be in the PHONE business for the best
interest of the people. The original plan was to make a 'telephone' affordable
to ALMOST ALL the people. The way to do this was by making the economies of
ever cheapening long distance help pay for local service. This was so that
the little old retired lady that wanted to live on her own on a limited
income as well as others that had limited income would be able to have
AFFORDABLE local telephone rates. The method to acomplish this was to put
a higher than cost charge for access to the local telephone networks from 
the long distance carrier, which originally was only AT&T. This then subsidized
the local telephone service. This also made telephone service affordable to
smaller towns, where the cost of doing business was higher. That cost was
spread somewhat evenly. This meant that the cost of doing business between
large cities was very low. 

ENTER MCI Inc., which by the way used to but no longer stands for Microwave
Communications Inc Inc. They don't want to be assocciated with the OLD 
Microwave Technology, Although they are still very much tied to it.

The first MCI venture was a Private Line link from Chicago to Kansas City,
I think. Some such large Midwestern City to another. They were not tied to
subsidizing anything and could offer very low cost circuits. They then 
expanded, of course to dial long distance, but still not paying any of
the subsidizing charges that were and still are paid by AT&T. As less
of these fees are collected the cost of providing local service is going
up, and in order to allow the local phone companys to stay in business
the state regulatory agencies granted phone rate increases. 

AT&T is still providing the final connection to most of the small towns.
If you think that MCI, Sprint,.....every small rinky dink Long distance
Company, has a actual Point Of Presence in every small town, your sadly
mistaken. 

US WEST MRG (Publishing Group)
Englewood, Colorado
303-784-2864

/* I am Neither for Nor Against Apathy */
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: National debt is not bad
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 20:07:57 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

birmingh@fnalo.fnal.gov (Phillip J. Birmingham) writes:

> > 1)  Maybe, just maybe, our large defense outlays are part of the reason tha
> > we haven't been attacked on US soil since 1815?  If you have the means to k
> > my ass into oblivion, I'm sure as hell not going to mess with you.
> 
>          Hasn't hurt, but probably the combination of two large oceans and
>     friendly neighbors have had more to do with it. 

Even strangers are friendly when you have a gun hanging off your hip. :)


--
"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

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm)
Subject: Re: William Jefferson ________ Clinton
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:13:10 GMT
Keywords: 4 names

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:


>>   Rush said on one of his TV shows that Bill had 4 names just like
>>George Herbert Walker Bush.  Is there any truth to this?  Would be
>>funny if true, considering all the heat George took over 4 names.

>William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.


    So, why did he not take the oath with his full name?  It is his legal
name, right?  Sounds like more style to me......

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ctdonath@rodan.syr.EDU (Carl T. Donath)
Subject: Re: Dittoheads
In-reply-to: Wesley Bielinski's message of Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:07:26 CST
Organization: Syracuse University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 11:25:17 EST

In article <93022.120727U53734@uicvm.uic.edu> Wesley Bielinski <U53734@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

   I'm new to this group (actually I just found it yesterday).  I've been
   listening and watching Rush (as often as I can) since a few weeks
   before the election.  I still have not been able to figure out just what
   DITTO's means.  Can someone, KINDLY, enlighten me.  Thank you.

People who actually get to talk to Rush frequently wish to say many flattering
and praising things about him ("I listen to your show every day", "It's 
wonderful there's someone standing up for conservatism", "you're my hero",
etc.etc.etc), and when they do it usually chews up valuable airtime with
something that has been heard many times before.

To save time, people will start the call by saying "Dittos, Rush" meaning
that they want to thank him and praise him, but will save time with "ditto"
and refer him back to the wonderful things others have said.

If they want to be really emphatic about saying wonderful things, and still
save time, they'll say "Megadittos, Rush". 

If they want to be really emphatic _and_ corny, they'll say "Gigadittos,
Rush" (this is rare).

In recognition of the human tendancy to re-define words as a by-product
of overuse, I'll quote Websters:

ditto (dit'o) n., pl. -tos. [Dial. Ital. p.part. of Ital. dire, to say <Lat
dicere.] 1. The same as stated above or before. -Used to avoid repetition
and indicateed by a pair of small marks (") placed under the original
printed material. 2. A copy or duplicate. -adv. As before. -vt. -toed, 
-toing, -tos. To duplicate or repeat. -interj. -used to express similarity
or accord.

--
  _____/ ctdonath@rodan.acs.syr.edu   Carl T Donath \_____
 / The second amendment is the only right that guarantees \
 \        the preservation of all other rights.           /
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: control
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:20:05 GMT

In article <1k6bmsINNg34@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>I am vitally concerned that you would reduce me to a subclass of both
>citizen and human being.  And, regardless of the words you care to use, and
>the rationalization you would apply to your vote, the FACT of the matter is
>you would, in restricting abortion, reduce me, my mother, my daughters, my
>sisters, and all the women I know to less-than-people.
This seems to me to be precisely as valid as claiming that
requiring me to register for the draft reduces men to less-than-people.
Certainly, I would say that if your argument wrt abortion has force,
then conscription reduces men to less than people.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13874 talk.politics.misc:69833
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Why are conservatives so stupid ?
Date: 26 Jan 93 05:25:40 GMT

In article <C1FMr5.Fry@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer
kyle cramm) says:

>  There are a great number of regularly posting liberals who apparently think
>that conservative = idiot.  Most of the time this is an inference; others
>say it explicitly.  Why do liberals think they corner the intelligence market?

Yeah! Anyway!  Everybody knows that all the idiots on the net are LIBERALS!
:-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 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
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Tales from the Dark Side...
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 02:22:53 GMT

In article <15627.2b60ce99@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>Today Clinton wiped out several cornerstones of the Far Right Wing! Many
>anti-abortion laws into the toilet. Dan "Our Boy" Quayl's "competitiveness
>council" went into the trash can.
>
>Thank you Bill. Fuck the Right Wing Nazis.
>
>-Garrett
>


Your eloquence is stifling. Look for the collected works of
this literary "genius" in the fall.
--
David Leung-tak
"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
"A day without sun is night."
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh