HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Sometimes I wonder about you people
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:04:21 GMT

ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>In a previous article, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:
>>eyc:
>>Can we please stop wasting bandwidth on BS topics and slander? This is
>>starting to get real tiresome.

    Good point.

>Certianly.  Just as soon as all the Limbots admit that truth is objective,
>not subjective, and that 90% of the garbage that comes out of Limbaugh's
>mouth is exactly that, garbage.

    I believe that one of Rush's most-coveted sayings is that morality 
cannot be defined by individuals (i.e.- it's "objective" and is not 
defined by individuals or even by sub-groups within society). Therefore 
I would bet that you can get plenty of "Limbots" to agree that truth 
is objective; you just couldn't get them to agree with you on what is 
really true.

    As far as the validity of statements that Rush makes, you may be 
correct, however I'm curious how you think it will help for people to 
continue posting highly intellectual stuff like "Rush Limbaugh is a penis"
or "all stupid people are conservatives"? I think that it's entirely 
possible that if these people would get some manners and direct their 
comments exclusively to the task of refuting Rush's "garbage" then they 
would find that they would command somewhat more respect and infinitely 
more credibility.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: Conservative vs Liberal Discussions...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:58:47 GMT

In article <BzFGD3.HwH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>I think one thing you are all forgetting is this:  Rush Limbaugh is NOT
>a politician.  He is an entertainer.  We have listened to uneducated liberal
>imbeciles like Whoopie Goldberg, Arsenio Hall and Jay Leno calling Bush
>and Quayle names for years.  This is protected by liberals under the guise
>of "free speech", but when we conservatives FINALLY get a voice in the media,
>that's "deliberate name-calling".
>
>Y'all better wake up and smell the coffee.  Rush Limbaugh is extremely 
>conservative (in the non-political sense) with his "name calling" compared
>to those liberal leaders in the feminazi, gay rights and wacko environmentalist
>interest groups.
What's scary is that this guy obviously thinks that feminazi and wacko
environmentalist are accepted names, and it's okay to use them.
Been watching a bit too much Rush lately?

>
>Have a nice day.
>
>
>
>Edward Simmonds
>
>no sig cause I REALLY DON'T CARE
>
You should.  The big scary liberals are going to be around at
least another 4 years, and there's going to be some changes....



Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10249 alt.politics.clinton:18737 alt.politics.bush:14616
From: zeke@fasttech.com (Bohdan Tashchuk)
Subject: Re: They Are Out to GET US!
Organization: Fast Technology
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 04:39:09 GMT

In <8h8qwn+@lynx.unm.edu> hagerjd@carina.unm.edu (John D. Hager) writes:

>This guy is ridiculous!  I suggest that this posting be the last posting in
>reply to any of drieux's postings.  What do you say?

Use nn. It lets you set up global kill files. Eg:

	:!n=:drieux

He's one of only three people I've "honored" this way. (But I'm not sure that
Serdar Argic is really a person, so maybe it's really one of only two.)
I avoid 99% of his postings this way. Obviously I didn't avoid your response,
but that's because it would be too slow to search entire articles for his name.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Super G Burger"
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:04:56 GMT

<1992Dec8.014711.15872@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
>In article <168B07517.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU> VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
...
>Kneel to Al Gore. We SALUTE to Rush Limbaugh.

Is that salute done with palm facing outward, hand opened, sides of
fingers touching, arm thrust forward and upward followed by heels clicking
together?  Ah yes, I thought so.

...
>All in all, #Limbaugh is becoming a very entertaining channel. Cmon in -
>yes, even you, Patrick Humphrey. Definitely, we'd like to see you -
>bring marinade sauce, a plate and utensils, though - I'd hate to gnaw
>you to the bone with my bare hands in such a refined place. :) 

"CHANEY OFFERS TO EAT HUMPHREY - Film at 11:00"


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9953 alt.politics.bush:14449 alt.politics.clinton:18447 alt.politics.homosexuality:7877 alt.rush-limbaugh:11446
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: Homophobes in the Military..what nobody is talking about:
In-reply-to: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu's message of 11 Dec 1992 22:34 CST
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Dec09.210734.43257@ux1.cts.eiu.edu>
	<1992Dec11.110518.11891@walter.cray.com>
	<11DEC199222342374@zeus.tamu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 12 Dec 92 14:58:59

I must apologize to you all about a posting that I made yesterday.  I
said something to the effect of children needing parental permission
to even be in the "Two Daddies" classes.  I was confusing the New
York issue with a quite similar one in Birmingham, Michigan.  I
actually have read next to nothing about the New York situation.  I
apologize for any inconvenience my post may have caused.

--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party ( Was Re: Conservative Values (Re: New
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:11:54 GMT

In article <mlbruce.724692887@husc11> mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce) writes:
>scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec17.165709.22823@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>(eloquence deleted)
>>Hmm.  IMO, the only way the Republicans are going to win in '96 is
>>if they manage to suppress all the ultra-right wing hyperreligious nuts.
>>The Democratic strategy in '92 was move the party towards the average joe's
>>politics.
>>The Republican strategy in '92 was to move the part *AWAY* from the
>>average joe's politics, and towards the religious crazies (see
>>what happened to the Republicans here in Washington ... a platform against
>>yoga and medition =) )
>
>>Now guess who won?
>
>Oddly enough, in national elections up to 1992, the Republicans seemed to
>have done best when they could demonstrate the lines of ideological
>distinction between the parties, the Democrats doing best when those
>distinctions could be blurrer.
>1972: McGovern shown to be in far left-- Nixon wins easily.
>1976: 2 moderates, Carter wins.
>1980-1984: Reagan eludicates conservative principles well, wins landslides.
>1988: Dukakis finally admits to being Liberal, Bush wins on Reagan coattails.
>
>With the Bush loss, this oversimplification needs to be modified in two
>ways: first, traditional Republican conservatism gets votes, but religious
>extremism does not. When Bush, a moderate at heart, needed to shore up his
>conservative base, he reached well past mainstream conservatives into the
>"God's country" religious right. There is a difference: one can have
>conservative economic principles, believe in a strong America regarding
>foreign policy, and even lean to social conservatism without trying to
>forcibly convert the entire populace to fundamentalist Christianity.
>Second: ideological distinctions aren't enough if the leader/candidate
>does not have a strong grasp of his views and the ability to communicate
>his vision eloquently. That was Reagan's biggest strength, Bush's biggest
>weakness.
>
>One can only hope, based on the above, that Jack Kemp wins the '96 nomination.

Hmmm.  I think that's a bit of an oversimplification.  My feeling
(no, I don't have any evidence at all) is that the American people
in general are conservative is most ways, but liberal about social issues
(abortion, welfare, etc).  They voted for Republicans because they assumed
that the social issues would stay safe, and they wanted the pro-business
Republicans.  But when the fundamentalist Christians, and hyper-conservatives
came along and started to destroy basic social freedoms, then
the American people shifted over to a moderate Democrat, because
they still needed a pro-business view, but also wanted social issues
to be safe.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: Conservative vs Liberal Discussions...
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:39:02 GMT

I think one thing you are all forgetting is this:  Rush Limbaugh is NOT
a politician.  He is an entertainer.  We have listened to uneducated liberal
imbeciles like Whoopie Goldberg, Arsenio Hall and Jay Leno calling Bush
and Quayle names for years.  This is protected by liberals under the guise
of "free speech", but when we conservatives FINALLY get a voice in the media,
that's "deliberate name-calling".

Y'all better wake up and smell the coffee.  Rush Limbaugh is extremely 
conservative (in the non-political sense) with his "name calling" compared
to those liberal leaders in the feminazi, gay rights and wacko environmentalist
interest groups.

Have a nice day.



Edward Simmonds

no sig cause I REALLY DON'T CARE




Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10139 alt.politics.clinton:18624 alt.president.clinton:1099 talk.abortion:52006
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Prediction: Rush Limbaugh has hit his peak; He will
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:07:12 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <schlegel.724352440@cwis> schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>
>>I see myself as a bleeding-heart liberal, but I used to love listening
>>to Rush Limbaugh's punchy right-wing rhetoric. No more! He now comes
>>across as an issue-less cry baby. For a guy of his type to e popular,
>>there must be an enemy. Clinton, by virtue of his middle-of-the-road
>>approach, is not a good target. Rush, all of a sudden, sounds vacuous
>>and stupid.
>
> How is Clinton "middle-of-the-road"?  That's an example of how he's fooled
> the people and the press.  He's not a centrist or a moderate, he's a 
> total liberal.
>
I would like to see your evidence on this -- direct evidence, policy-wise,
that he is a Liberal.  I will furnish some evidence he is a centrist.
1) He supports NAFTA; 2) He did not outright oppose the Gulf War (see below)
3) supports a capital-gains like tax cut for business under certain
circumstances 4) supports the death penalty...need I go on?
Of course, some of his positions are more liberal, but then that is the
definition of a centrist -- some of his positions are conservative, so
liberal, some moderate.  As Gary Hart said, "I look neither left nor
right but forward."

On a related note, why do conservatives insist upon bashing Congressional
liberals who opposed the Gulf War with the words, "Everybody in the whole
world supported the USA except the Congressional Democrats"?  The rest
of the world was not going to bear the *costs* of the Gulf War if things
got nasty, but the USA was.  The Congress was therefore justified in
being more critical than everyone else.  Bill Clinton gave a statement
of tentative support for the war, and did not condemn it by any means.
This is again my definition of a moderate -- took one side (conservative,
pro-war) but tempered it with input from the other.

In spite of this, I do hope Rush stays on the air, as I enjoy his
commentary...sort of a "so bad it's good" thing.

Followups to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.clinton.
From: pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Cough! Choke! Air, more air!
Date: 14 Dec 1992 22:48:45 GMT
Organization: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Reply-To: pearsodc@HYDRA.ROSE-HULMAN.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: hydra.rose-hulman.edu

Christian Gustafson writes:
>
>IMHO, I think we should create a new newsgroup, alt.conservative.forum,
>that could contain the facts, truths, and seemingly divine insights of those 
>of us who are digging-in for 4 years of an occupation force being inside 
>the Beltway.  Such a group would be a lesser version of the much lauded 
>'Town Hall,' but would still run on the inexhaustible fuel of Conservative
>ideas.

Agreed.  Shoot, the commie/libs get every other group on the alt.* hiearchy,
(even alt.fan.rush, anymore).  Why shouldn't we get one for ourselves?

Anybody want to volunteer to moderate?

>For now, though, I find this group too noxious, and, despite my mistrust
>of them, I am tempted to call the EPA.  Air, more air, on the EIB group!

Hear, hear!

>cg
>-- 
>:::::======  gus3@midway.uchicago.edu      :::::====== 
>:::::======  Paleoconservative and proud-  :::::======  
>===========  fighting to repeal the New    ===========  
>===========  Deal, for a better tomorrow.  ===========  

clueless chuck				                     ___
pearsodc@rosevc.rose-hulman.edu                             (o o)
------------------------------------------------------------w U w------------
|DOUGLAS C PEARSON JR                |we were headed for somewhere          | 
|rose-hulman institute of technology |but that was before                   |
|campus box 1204                     |you traded in your peace sign         |
|5500 wabash avenue		     |   for a finger...                    |
|terre haute, indiana  47803         |			- steve taylor, 1992|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Madonna (was Re: Rush just looks at the pictures (was: Summary Wed 12/2/92))
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:03:59 CST


In article <1992Dec13.154821.12887@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, wgb3@pyuxf.uucp (25336-buoni) writes:
> From porthos!walter!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!agate!overload.lbl.gov!s1.gov!lip Sun Dec 13 10:39:39 EST 1992
> 
> >	About Madonna's book _Sex_ itself... Originally, she wanted to
> >call it "Erotica" or "X", but decided on that title because of the old
> >saying, "Sex sells". Just one of her little jokes.
> 
> [tons of Madonna garbage deleted]
> 
> I'd always wondered what desperate soul would spend $50 for such trash?  I 
> mean $2.50 (or whatever it costs) for Penthouse or Playboy seems too 
> expensive too me.  Myself, I've never understood the attraction of pornography
> (or should I say ARTWORK (?!?)).  How viewing a woman in degrading poses can
> turn someone on is beyond me, but then again I'm a boring Christian!

"degrading poses" in Penthouse or Playboy?  I guess I missed that issue.  :-)

Seriously, do you think nudity == "degrading"?

Note, I am also a Christian.

> >	Looking over the many other things she has said over the
> >years, I find her much more likable than Rush Limbaugh, who is an
> >obnoxious, self-righteous boor.
> 
> I'll stick with Rush!  

Especially "2112".

-- 
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: depken@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Craig Depken)
Subject: More thoughts on economic illiteracy (c)
Summary: Economic illiteracy is campaign fodder 
Keywords: economics, illiteracy, Rush, taxes, Bush, Congress 
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:29:00 GMT

More thoughts...no flames...see part (a) for disclaimers

craig.



c) No New Taxes (George Bush):

	L.D.P.G.B. claimed that he did not want to introduce New Taxes.
	A small technicality but there are actually less taxes on the
	books now, we just pay more for them. But that aside, there is
	only so much the president can do. Since Congress is the sole
	body responsible for spending money, it is Congress that decides
	where and what monies are taxed. The problem is that there is
	no line item veto, so Bush doesn't want to raise taxes, but he
	wants money for Star Wars (or whatever), so he sends the whole
	thing back for reworking (ever try reading the budget...over
	1200 pages). Finally, Congress decides that they will give
	the president half of what he wants (or whatever it is that he
	finally figures is all he can get), but with that he has to 
	sign on for higher taxes. It's called log-rolling, and that is
	not economics, but political-science/history. So, Congress
	log-rolls a tax hike along with a lot of other stuff that Bush
	actually wants, actually lived up to his campaign promises on,
	but all we hear about is the bad news...what the hell it sells.
	
	Now, I am not saying that it will be any different with Clinton.
	I think that some things that the Congress wants to do may pass
	through the Oval Office a lot easier now, but the same problem
	will exist. Congress will tell Clinton how to spend the money,
	how to cut/raise taxes, etc. and he will have to accept it. I 
	do not agree with any candidate making promises that he knows
	he will not be able to keep.  It is unfair to implicate Bush
	for failing on his promise in 1988, but let's not forget to
	implicate Clinton when he fails to do the same with his promises,
	especially M.C. tax cut, no gas tax, inheritence tax, property
	capital gains tax, tax on two income families, etc.



More to follow.....


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crowder@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Mark Crowder)
Subject: The "L" word
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:24:00 GMT


In reading this group, I can see that there are many different opinions
on what the word "Liberal" means.  However, I never see it actually
defined.  How about a dialogue on it?  I'll start.  This is one of
my recent favorites:

  "When is say 'liberals'[ed. orig in italics], I certainly don't
   mean openhanded individuals or tolerant persons or even Big 
   Government Democrats.  I mean people who are excited that one
   percent of the profits of Ben and Jerry's ice cream goes to 
   promote world peace."
			-- P.J. O'Rourke  "Give War a Chance" 

Any other ideas?  No fair using the dictionary!

Mark Crowder  "I'm sorry my karma ran over your dogma"  crowder@spdc.ti.com 
Dallas, Tx                                          Texas Instruments, Inc.
"If at first you don't succeed, try again.  Then quit.  No use being a 
 damn fool about it."  -- W.C. Fields
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10422 talk.politics.misc:64777
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party ( Was Re: Conservative Values (Re: New
From: mlbruce@husc11.harvard.edu (Matthew Bruce)
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:34:47 GMT
 <1gq80kINNb9@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> <1992Dec17.165709.22823@news.columbia.edu> <1992Dec17.184832.3221@u.washington.edu>

scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper) writes:

>In article <1992Dec17.165709.22823@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
(eloquence deleted)
>Hmm.  IMO, the only way the Republicans are going to win in '96 is
>if they manage to suppress all the ultra-right wing hyperreligious nuts.
>The Democratic strategy in '92 was move the party towards the average joe's
>politics.
>The Republican strategy in '92 was to move the part *AWAY* from the
>average joe's politics, and towards the religious crazies (see
>what happened to the Republicans here in Washington ... a platform against
>yoga and medition =) )

>Now guess who won?

Oddly enough, in national elections up to 1992, the Republicans seemed to
have done best when they could demonstrate the lines of ideological
distinction between the parties, the Democrats doing best when those
distinctions could be blurrer.
1972: McGovern shown to be in far left-- Nixon wins easily.
1976: 2 moderates, Carter wins.
1980-1984: Reagan eludicates conservative principles well, wins landslides.
1988: Dukakis finally admits to being Liberal, Bush wins on Reagan coattails.

With the Bush loss, this oversimplification needs to be modified in two
ways: first, traditional Republican conservatism gets votes, but religious
extremism does not. When Bush, a moderate at heart, needed to shore up his
conservative base, he reached well past mainstream conservatives into the
"God's country" religious right. There is a difference: one can have
conservative economic principles, believe in a strong America regarding
foreign policy, and even lean to social conservatism without trying to
forcibly convert the entire populace to fundamentalist Christianity.
Second: ideological distinctions aren't enough if the leader/candidate
does not have a strong grasp of his views and the ability to communicate
his vision eloquently. That was Reagan's biggest strength, Bush's biggest
weakness.

One can only hope, based on the above, that Jack Kemp wins the '96 nomination.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10432 talk.abortion:52352
From: ece_0028@bigdog.engr.arizona.edu (David Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: keep your pants on, Mark
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:39:23 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona

In article <1992Dec17.172846.5252@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>
>Since you've come out of hiding David, are you now ready to admit
>publically that your "facts" about abortion (supposedly obtained from
>the lancet) were either invented by you to serve you propaganda
>efforts, or misrepresented by you (for the same reason) or just plain
>bogus nonsense?
>Or do you plan to continue dodging all questions addressed to you?
>Come on David, either back up your claims with some documentable
>evidence, or join DODie, DJR, and others in the Professionial Idiots
>and Liars Hall of Fame.
>
>--
>                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu

I'm not hiding anywhere.  I just haven't had time to address all
the questions sent my way.  And I will be out of town for the next
month, so you'll have to wait (I know you'll miss me, but you'll
get over it...:).

But I promise to return with the Lancet article.  I didn't invent
or misrepresent anything.

David.........................
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10316 talk.politics.misc:64645