HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Why Bush will lose in November
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:36:15 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus

In article <1992Oct5.153432.1@oread.cc.ukans.edu> jdeke@oread.cc.ukans.edu (John Deke) writes:

>     Sadly, I just don't see how we can reasonably expect the American public
>to show any intelligence and vote against this governor from Arkansas.

	In short, Clinton will win because AMERICANS ARE MORONS. Sad, but
true, the American public is simply too stupid to elect their own leaders,
it's a wonder that most of them can tie their shoes without help from 
someone with a brain (presumably a conservative).

	I've been waiting for this, and I expect that there will be a lot more
of it as Bush goes further into the tank. I don't really expect dittoheads
to go for the idea that the man they chose to represent the republican party
is less desireable then Bill Clinton to the American people. After all, we 
all know that americans are fundamentally conservative.

	Other explanations we can expect:

	"It's the liberal media's fault: they told everybody how to vote"

	"Clinton fought a dirty campaign[1]"

	"Bush wasn't our real choice, we really wanted XXX"

	"Bush was too liberal - he alienated conservatives"

I'm sure that there will be others - save and collect them all!

[1] This was the subject of a column by a Bush person in the NYTimes last
saturday. The author was lamenting that Bush is being tarred for fighting
dirty when it's actually the other side. Not what I'd expect from the GOP, 
but I think that there will be more of it.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6104 alt.news-media:1426 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4688
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.news-media,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Hyperbole about Clarence Thomas
Date: 29 Sep 92 04:39:26 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

In article <1992Sep25.210838.3942@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>The idea that the "creul and unusual punishment" only applies to sentences
>is idiotic,  there is nothing in the constitution to cause anyone to take
>this stance.  

This is typical, liberal, re-write the Constitution nonsense.

>Thomas's reasonoing that this clause only protects an individual at
>sentencing but does not protect him while in the prision is just shit. 
>Thomas, who is the worst Justice on the Court,  is saying that the
>constitution asserts that you can not sentence someone to torture for a
>certain crime,  but if the guars at the prision torture the prosioner they
>are not violating any of his constitutional rights.

Wow, a legal scholar, and he knows all those legal terms.  If a person was
sentenced to jail for a crime, that's fair.  If the guards beat him, then
you sue for assualt and battery, or whatever.  They MAY be violating his
constitutional rights, but not the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

>If the media didn't explain it how did you learn about it,  better yet how
>did I learn about since I knew of the case also?

Try watching Court TV sometime, they spend a lot more time than the regular
media, looking for sound bites.  As they summed it up, this was an
extremely complicated case, not just a video.  The cops were tried for
trying to KILL King, not just beating him.  Had they been tried for
the beating, they probably would have been convicted.  Trying to prove
they were trying to kill him was a little more difficult.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Family Leave
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:44:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.184058.14593@nntpserver.chevron.com> jviv@usmi01.midland.chevron.com (John Viveiros) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.175925.9328@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:

>Am I alone in not understanding what Mike's point is.

I doubt it.  Only those who believe that the just goal of education is
to acheive the same result across the board and this is only achieved
by lowering standards would not follow my argument.  This "averaging"
philosophy is evident in much of liberalism, it hampers human excellence
and punishes achievement.  I do not believe that it is beneficial to 
education which, you have just pointed out, is in a "bad situation".

Mike Best
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5993 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5970
From: anwar+@cs.cmu.edu (Anwar Mohammed)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Interesting Clinton Supporters
Date: 28 Sep 92 12:51:27 GMT
Distribution: usa,na
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep28.035953.1444@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <mykes.0e1b@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
>>Rush asked Bush on the radio about the Crowe endorsement.  Bush said
>>that Crowe was one of those who testified to the senate before the
>>Gulf War - against Bush' proposals.  He told the committee that the
>>war would fail, the plan was stupid, we were starting another VietNam,
>>etc.
>>
>>And Crowe ended up being proven totally wrong.	YOu might say he
>>ate crow :)
>
>VietNam					Gulf War
>
>Started with defensive advisors		ditto
>Troops held back for political reasons	ditto
>War drags on for YEARS			(watch for Gulf War II)
>Americans leave country			ditto
>20,000 dead				100 dead
>Enemy undefeated			ditto

Oh, Please.  The clearly stated primary objective of Desert Storm
was to liberate Kuwait.  This was accomplished with a minimal loss of 
American troops.  A secondary mandate was to destroy Iraq's weapons of 
mass destruction.  This has been accomplished thus far without further
military action.  Much as I'd like to see it, killing Saddam Hussein 
was never a mandate of the war.

Oh yeah, American CIVILIANS have been returning to Kuwait in droves since 
it was liberated.  I imagine they just don't know yet that the U.S. 
actually "lost" the war; why don't you enlighten them;->



-anwar
-- 
Anwar Mohammed                FREE       Graduate Student
anwar+@cs.cmu.edu              THE       School of Computer Science
Voice: +1 412 268 3043     KUWAITI       Carnegie-Mellon University
Fax:   +1 412 681 5739        POWS       Pittsburgh, PA  15213-3890
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6483 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4887
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Royko article: Next Time, Dan, Take Aim At Arnold
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:31:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <1992Oct2.042800.28125@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <92275.221953KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>The Terminator was a robot whose only purpose in 'life' was to kill stuff
>>and be a general a--hole.  Again, not presented as a role model for the kids,
>>not presented as a positive character with positive attributes.
>
>Schwartzenegger, Steven Segal, Clint Eastwood, Chuck Norris - these guys
>are heros because the can kick the shit out of the bad guys. It's about
>macho violence, strong men defending their families and stomping evil
>without the burden of a bunch of liberal political restrictions. Role
>models? You bet.

I agree with you Alex (oops ;)).  People learn and make decisions on
the direction their lives take based upon the inputs (to some extent).
Wackos aside, there is an amorphous group which finds the current legal
system highly unjust, inefficient, and basically frustrating.  These people
cheer when "justice" occurs in the movies, unlike in reality where the
bad guys have the advantage.  The movie stars become heros for doing the
right thing and are thus role models.

So, in light of the influence which you've admitted those action films have
on one segment of society, would you agree that Murphy Brown does have 
some influence as well?  Are the fans of Murphy Brown immune to such
because they are higher thinkers?  I don't expect an unqualified "yes"
because that would legitimize Quayle's statements to some degree.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 06:54:17 GMT


I do thank everyone for pointing out the problem.

I honestly overlooked your idea (writing things down).  I didn't mean to be
rude about it.

What I'm trying to do is paraphrase the article I'm following up.
I wasn't trying to post "just noise".  I truly thought I was involved in
a legitamate discussion, and didn't realize how bizarre my beliefs really
are to some people.  But I cannot back off now. I have committed myself
to this, and I hope to continue intelligent debates here.  Thanks again.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1992 04:28:24 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1054@bug.UUCP>  stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>
> Look up the word "child".  You will find nothing about a soul.  A fetus is
> by definition a child.

Depends on the dictionary.

> That is why there are phrases like "she is with-child".

You are WRONG, idiom-breath.  A fetus is by definition a sweet roll.
That's why there are phrases like "she has a bun in the oven."

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh: a Misogynist Boor?
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 20:48:56 GMT

eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>+      Is Rush Limbaugh a misogynist boor? I think that the answer is
>+yes, 

    Well, if Rush was really a misogynist then I doubt that he would've 
ever gotten married to a woman (which he's done a couple times, right?).
Of course, it's possible that Rush is a misogamist (meaning that he doesn't 
hate women but just hates being married to them). It's also possible that 
he's just a boor in his private life. Many people who are all-consumed by 
one topic (be it themselves or some other topic) end up being boors. 

>+after inventing the term "feminazi" (I thought only liberals used
>+"Nazi" as a dirty word) and claiming in one of his "undisputable
>+truths" that feminism is just a movement to help unattractive women
>+get ahead. I comment this because I'm not sure he would enjoy being
>+called a fat redneck.

    Quite to the contrary, I'm sure that Rush would *love* being called 
a fat redneck. He seems to get a big kick out of it every time some liberal 
starts calling him names because that makes it look like the liberals have 
run out of substance for real disagreements. In fact that is not the case, 
and I'm sure that those liberals who *are* trying to confront Rush on real 
issues would prefer that other less diplomatic liberals should keep their 
insults to themselves.

    Please try to make your arguments on real bases or don't bother to make 
them at all.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Murphy Brown
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:56:11 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <Sep.28.13.16.59.1992.5878@gandalf.rutgers.edu>, shagan@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Susan Hagan) writes:
|> 
|> I think that Dan's speech is just further proof that if you give him 
|> enough rope, he'll hang himself with it.
|> 
|> And I think Diane English got Danno good.

So whaddaya want?  Some POLITICIAN for veep?  Just look at the morass that
spineless, smooth-talking professionals like Al Gore has gotten us into.

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 21:29:42 GMT

In <1992Oct5.194257.21853@ra.msstate.edu>, Carolyn E. Adams-Price writes:

>Is the fetus aware?

>Research suggests that the fetus has the brain waves associated with
>consciousness only after 7 months in utero.  Before that, the fetus
>is NOT aware.

What research?  Would you cite the study?  Are there any other studies which
disagree with that?  I don't think you're making this up, but I think too
many people on the net tend to make authoritarian statements without having
the source to back them up.

Does that mean that they won't feel an abortion until seven months?


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc5.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
Republicans say:  You aren't capable of making lifestyle choices.  You need us.
Democrats say:  You aren't capable of being fair to people.  You need us.
Libertarians say:  Only YOU know what's best for you.  You don't need them.
From: detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: rush_e_mail_address
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:17:52 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


70277.2502@compuserve.com


-- 
David De Trolio
---------------------------------
(detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
---------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 20:55:38 GMT

dsh@odin.ece.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes ...
>The evidence that I've seen suggests that the neocortex ("higher 
>brain") of a newborn infant is not sufficiently developed to possess
>cognitive thought.  It is only until several months after birth
>that the infant's brain matures to a point where cognitive thought    
>is possible.  Therefore, if you base your support for abortion rights 
>on the fetus's inability to "think", then you must also condone
>infanticide.  

Stop being such an asshole.  In means nothing of the sort and you know
it.  Aside from the the blindingly obvious fact (to us, anyway) that a
newborn can't be aborted (can you figure out why?), most people aren't
even defending the common use of third trimester abortions and they
are very rare anyway.  If you can't come up with anything better than
sleazy straw-man arguments, go somewhere else. 

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Who shall guard the guardians themselves?"
ray@netcom.com                     -- Juvenal
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: leifmk@Lise.Unit.NO (Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 16:12:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.093834.5371@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
 > 
 > I think instead of "pro-choice" or pro-abortion" we should use a term
 > that is more accurate.  The term "pro-infanticide", or more simply,
 > "Pro-Murder" is the correct term that should be used, since after all,
 > abortion is the outright killing of children.
 > 
 > With that line of reasoning, if abortion is murder, then those doctors
 > that perform abortions are therefore murderers.  Going further, if abortion
 > is murder, and those that perform it are murderers, and if murder is a
 > capital crime, then technically they should face execution-right?? I mean,

That's your opinions.  If there has turned up any solid evidence that a partially
developed fetus (like 12 weeks or less) is conscious and aware, then I would
agree that it is indeed a child.  Otherwise, my fine friend, your posting is a
prime example of fascist bullshit.

Personally, I don't believe a fetus should be called a child, not until it is
developed enough to survive outside the womb.  Further, a newborn baby can hardly
be said to be fully aware.  I don't view even newborn babies as actual human
beings--they are potential human beings.  Getting born means you're only halfway
there.           ^^^^^^^^^

The world is overpopulated already.  But maybe your solution to that problem is
to make the death penalty mandatory for petty crimes?  I feel that the legalized
killing of aware, thinking human beings is far more atrocious than abortion, by
several orders of magnitude.  Even if those executed are guilty of horrible
crimes, this does not make their suffering any less.  And what of cases where
people are innocently convicted and sentenced?  We know that this can happen--
how would you like to be arrested, tried, convicted, and executed--all by error?

Leif the .sigless
From: mike@execu.execu.com (Mike McCants)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Date: 6 Oct 92 13:39:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Comshare, Inc. Austin Development Center

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

>>Rush says "it's
>>not the first time that some guy blew into town for a night,
>>trashed her, and then left."
>
>humiliated, which I find rather sick. Yes, sick.

When he SAYS it, it's funny.  When you take offense, it's sick.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Rush Limbaugh on Feminism
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 06:17:54 GMT


	It is sometimes said of RL's use of "feminazi" that there is a
certain kind of extremist feminist that it appropriately refers to.
While there are _some_ feminists that can be called extremists, I
think that RL is trying to smear _all_ feminists, since he has not
described what he considers legitimate feminist positions.

	To make myself clearer on this, let us suppose that RL had a
habit of denouncing "shylock" Jewish bankers. Would it be a legitimate
defense of him to insist that some Jewish bankers are indeed little
better than loan sharks? This kind of remark would make it sound like
he considers _all_ Jews to be the sort of sleazy characters who become
loansharking bankers.

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5976 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5961
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Interesting Clinton Supporters
Date: 28 Sep 92 03:59:53 GMT
Distribution: usa,na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <mykes.0e1b@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:

>Rush asked Bush on the radio about the Crowe endorsement.  Bush said
>that Crowe was one of those who testified to the senate before the
>Gulf War - against Bush' proposals.  He told the committee that the
>war would fail, the plan was stupid, we were starting another VietNam,
>etc.
>
>And Crowe ended up being proven totally wrong.	YOu might say he
>ate crow :)

VietNam					Gulf War

Started with defensive advisors		ditto
Troops held back for political reasons	ditto
War drags on for YEARS			(watch for Gulf War II)
Americans leave country			ditto
20,000 dead				100 dead
Enemy undefeated			ditto


At least one major difference - the politicians backstabed our military 
before the losses get big (at least in Gulf War I).

I'm sure Saddam and Ho Chi Minh would have had a lot to talk about.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Murphy Brown
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Distribution: world 
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:50:46 GMT

In article <6449@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>> I say we discredit the media and make journalism a highly shameful
>> profession. They are blatant liars, cover-up maniacs, and they just
>> don't do their job. 
>> 
>> In my opinion: Long Live Rush! 
>
>Uh, Steve, apparently you overlooked the fact that your corpulent hero,
>Rush, is part of the media.

He's one of the FEW good parts of it.


>As for "liberal media," it's a phrase used seriously only by Rush's
>whining army of girly-men. Analogously, if you were losing a game of
>chess, you would be whining that your opponent had too many pieces on
>the board.

FACT: The media let us hear how Anita Hill did not go after Clarence
      Thomas for money. 
FACT: The MEDIA won't tell us how Anita Hill is touring the country
      about sexual harassment, at $10,000 an appearance. 

FACT: The media attacked Dan Quayle for his military service.
FACT: The media is calling Bill Clinton's military service a "non-issue." 

FACT: The media DID NOT tell us that the March for Women's Lives was
      only HALF its originally estimated size. 

FACT: The media is NOT telling us about Gore & Clinton's flip-flopping
      stands on abortion. 

FACT: The media is NOT mentioning that CONGRESS, not President Bush,
      wrote the new tax laws for which Bush is being blamed. 

FACT: The media TOTALLY IGNORED the SIX REPUBLICAN WOMEN RUNNING FOR
      OFFICE 2 years ago, in which it was the FIRST YEAR OF THE WOMAN.

FACT: The media TOTALLY BLOWS UP one sentence by Dan Quayle on
      Murphy Brown, yet TOTALLY IGNORES an entire NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
      that BASHES MURPHY BROWN, by ex-NOW President Karen DeCrow, who
      hated Murphy's pregnancy worse than Quayle. 

FACT...  


The media censors EVERYTHING that does not favor the far left cause.


I would go on, but why waste bandwidth proving to you that the media is
not reporting the news as it is, but only as they want you to hear it?


=============================================================================
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS.