HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bagchi@eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Drzzzzt!  Bagchi)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: Recreational Creationists, Inc.
	<1992Nov15.054513.1@deep-13.gizmo.com>
	<1992Nov15.164058.22834@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:52:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.164058.22834@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.054513.1@deep-13.gizmo.com> maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com writes:
>>In article <BxoBI8.39r@news.iastate.edu>, barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>    All of this leads me to the solid conclusion that conservatives
>>> are the real guarantors of First Amendment Rights in the U.S.  Liberals
>>> support other people's First Amendment rights only when the speach
>>> agrees with them.  Liberals have concocted a large number of terms
>>> like "political correctness" in attempt to stifle the First Amendment
>>> rights of people with opposing viewpoints.  Political incorrectness
>>> **IS** fully protected by the First Amendment, but liberals refuse to
>>> accept this.  Conservatives, however, always respect the First Amendment
>>> rights of everybody, regardless of opposing viewpoints.
>>
>>Are you a freshman or just stupid?
>>
>>wondering.max
>
>Mr. Barett is indeed correct and once again we are shown the need to result
>to insult rather than debate the subject at hand.  Calling this poster
>stupid is in the first instance inane in that he obviously has figured out
>how to post in the first place and that he is by reason of his participation on
>the internet, obviously computer literate.  Come gang if you have no argument
>against his positions lets leave the ad hominem abuse alone shall we?
>

	So you're a fool as well.  For every one instance of the censoring
of the "politically incorrect", I'm sure I can find at least as many
of the so-called conservatives enforcing their own brand of "political
correctness". This is, of course, because these so-called
conservatives have been in power for some time... Look forward
to a better balance in the coming years.

	-rj
--
Ranjan Bagchi					       Ranjan.Bagchi@umich.edu
oo   oooo  o oo   ooo oo oo   oo       o o  oooo ooo o       o        oooooooo
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8957 alt.rush-limbaugh:10180 alt.politics.bush:13993
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Date: 21 Nov 92 04:40:02 GMT
Distribution: usa, na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

> "We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
>       - some ex-Soviet leader            
>                    krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu

[a lot of arguement about what was meant deleted].

This phrase shows the danger of trying to strictly translate colloquial speech.
The old russian phrase "I will bury you" is more properly translated "I will
outlive you and be at your funeral".  Note that this is strictly in line with
Marxian doctrine that capitalism is a dying system, to be replaced by 
communism.

Now, Marxist-Lenninist thought encompassed the idea of armed "struggle",
but it also "knew" that the end was inevitable.  Thus Khruschev's statement
didn't neccesarily imply a direct active threat, although it didn't preclude
it either.

Reminds me of the (apocryphal) translation program that translated a paper
on studying wing loading as using "sandbags and water powered male sheep".   
Turns out it meant "hydraulic rams".
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8631 alt.rush-limbaugh:9749 alt.politics.clinton:17196
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Date: 15 Nov 1992 20:15:35 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <BxopKz.FIq@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>Another?  Camille Paglia.  Whenever she tries to speak with Feminazis present,
>she gets shouted down.

She can't be very bright then.  Rush says there are only 13 (or so)
Feminazis around, you'd think Camille could have someone stop any (or
all) of the 13 at the door.  Or even schedual around whereever the 13
are going to be.


>Nuff said.

Yup.

(oh, for the people lacking a clue phone  :-)
-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.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,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com
Subject: Re: "TAXES SHOULD BE BASIS FOR VOTING CLOUT"
Organization: Gizmonics Institute Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 09:08:35 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

 al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
> 
> 
> Reprinted from the Akron (OH) Beacon Journal, Nov. 14:
> 
>         "TAXES SHOULD BE BASIS FOR VOTING CLOUT"
> 
>    Each voter does not contribute the same amount in taxes,
> so why should every vote be equal?  The votes should be weighted
> according to how much income tax the voter pays.
>    This "weighted suffrage" would result in fairer representation
> and less cheating on income tax returns.  The middle class pays
> most of the taxes, and the middle class would tend to support those
> who would reduce the size and scope of government, freeing up the
> private sector.
>    The increased role of the marketplace would narrow the gap
> between the rich and poor, and promote peace worldwide.


This is the same idiot idea that was floated in another newsgroup and shot down
big time. 

A question: Is the above quoted article an editorial opinion of the Akron BJ or
is it from their letters page?

regards.max
mmonningh@igc.org
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8703 alt.rush-limbaugh:9845
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: List of Clinton's (to be) broken promises.
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:22:32 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

btenison@eng.auburn.edu (Bruce Tenison) writes:
> Here is a few of the promises which were posted in the alt.president.clinton 
> newsgroup...
> 
> ----- Begin included file -----
> 
>      On the front page of the 11/9/92 New York Times, there is a
> piece entitled "Clinton, After Raising Hopes, Now Tries to Lower
> Expectations."  In this piece, the major campaign promises made
> by President-Elect Clinton are summarized as follows.
> 
>      1.  He said he would end welfare "as we know it."
>      2.  He would restore America's industrial manufacturing base so 
>      that good, high-paying jobs are widespread.
>      3.  He would insure that no working family would fall below the 
>      poverty line.
>      4.  He would make "health care a right, not a privilege," for all
>      Americans without subjecting businesses to an additional tax burden
>      or rationing health care.
>      5.  He promised to eliminate adult illiteracy in five years.
>      6.  He promised to halve the Federal deficit in four years without
>      raising taxes on the middle class or significantly cutting the
>      Government entitlement programs that account for the bulk of 
>      Federal spending.
>      7.  He promised offering a modest tax break to the middle class.
>      8.  He would guarantee all Americans either a college education or
>      two years of vocational training after high school, under the 
>      guidance of a national service program that would "solve the 
>      problems of this country while educating a generation of Americans."
>      9.  Mr. Clinton pledged to keep abortion legal while "making it as
>      rare as possible."
>      10.  He promised to end racial, religious, geographical, and sex-
>      oriented divisions in society.
>      11.  He promised to safeguard environmental concerns without 
>      costing jobs.
>      12.  He promised to protect the rights and privileges of workers 
>      without costing business growth.
> 
>      Now I see what the Democrats were so excited about: "Read
> my lips -- Utopia!" 
> 
>      C. Perttunen
> 
> ------- End included file ------
> 
> Bruce
> 

You forgot one; he promised to keep a kosher kitchen in the White House!

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:26:31 GMT

In <1992Nov17.162705.24794@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:

>In article <1992Nov15.171641.28584@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.171300.11448@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>>>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>>>                           | Support the coup!
>>
>>I'd like to make a couple of comments in this thread concerning John's
>>current .sig.
>>
>>I really don't mind it very much, after all it is a free country and you
>>can say just about anything you want to. (It is illegal to threaten
>>the life of the president with mere words.) But I do think that is it
>>pretty stupid. Mainly since Clinton isn't president yet!! He is the
>>President-ELECT. You can't impeach someone who isn't the president yet!
>>GIVE THE GUY A CHANCE TO SCREW UP FIRST!!!

>But he has already promised to screw up, by saying that he will remove 
>the ban on gays in the military, etc.  I have not heard one of his 100 
>day promises which is not a screw up, at least IMO, therefore, as far 
>as I am concerned, HE ALREADY HAS SCREWED UP!!!

>Ted (author and originator of the term `Zackane') Krueger

<shocked gasp>!  You, good little conservative, actually _believe_ Slick
Willie will follow through on any of his promises?  How dare you?!  Everyone
knows he's just a waffler who tries to please everyone.

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8741 talk.abortion:48356
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Keywords: abortion, slavery
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:28:55 GMT
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <1992Nov17.162237.743@noose.ecn.purdue.edu> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.042749.7615@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes ...
>>> dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King) writes:
>>>> psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>>>>>Society does offer an alternative to pregnancy - it's called abstinence.

>>First, abstinence is clearly not an alternative to pregnancy, since it
>>neither terminates an existing pregnancy nor assures the prevention of
>>a future pregnancy.  Neither does a lack of abstinence assure the
>>onset of pregnancy, for that matter.

>Huh?  Abstinence = no pregnancy.  That was my point.

Ever heard of RAPE? 

>No, I think you missunderstand my point.  I don't think a set of laws will 
>*solve* the problem either.  That's why I'm calling for people to behave 
>responsibly so that the government doesn't have to keep fixing our problems.
>I never once mentioned a set of laws or that government should do this to
>you.  All I said was what I thought was reasonable behavior to expect from
>everyone in *this* society.

What you seem to be saying is 'do it my way or I will be forced to 
legislate my way into the legal code.'

>I'd rather see us, as a society, take the stance that abortion is wrong 
>and that we must all do something to make it uneccessary, un-OK, unreasonable,
>un-whatever, to have one.  Don't put words in my mouth, I'm not calling
>for the government to interfere - unless it must as a very last resort.

What comes next? We all take the stance that the Second Amendment is wrong and 
avoid gun control by voluntarily disarming? That we agree that freedom of
speech is wrong and shut up?

You are not making sense.

-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: dp
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:11:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.181753.29925@athena.cs.uga.edu>, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov16.163547.18320@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov13.201411.8203@cs.tulane.edu>, lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> In article <1e0vn9INNq5t@transfer.stratus.com>, dennist@sw.stratus.com (Dennis Tetreault) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> Let's stop this rumor now, before it gets out of hand.
|> >
|> >Why should we?  After all, the truth had very little to do with most of what
|> >Quayle was reported to have said and done.  This would be no greater distorion
|> >of the truth than, say, the alleged attack on single parents in the
|> >"Murphey Brown" speech.
|> 
|> 	Yeah. Right. It wasn't an attack on single parents. Just two
|> days later Quayle's handlers said the VP was misunderstood. The
|> speech, they way, was a warning shot to deadbeat dads.
|> 	Funny. I read the text of that speech somewhere, and I don't
|> recall any mention of deadbeat Dads. Maybe it was subliminal, and
|> something that only republicans could pickup on.
|> 

Dream on if you like.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith)
Subject: Re: Flaming Conservative (Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights)
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:46:03 GMT

In article <15NOV199221081276@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu   writes:
>    /    )               /          
>   /    /               /       
>  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
>__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
> /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     __
>(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__    \/
>
>      God commanded Isaac to kill his son.  It is said to have been
>      a test for Isaac.  But it could only have been a test for him
>      if indeed God had truly commanded him to do so.  And of course
>      God would not lie.  So we see that some of God's commandments
>      may be in conflict or contradiction with others.  I suppose
>      that we should find this Acceptable.  Discuss

Discuss?  Ok, this is easy...

God is *God*... and you're not.  Think about it.

That about covers it :-).
-P

PS. Yes I know it was only a .sig
--
---
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: THE LIMBAUGH DIR/ALLAMERICAN RE
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 21:12:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.220206.1@woods.ulowell.edu> enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>"You Say You Want a Revolution"
>
>The American(read Limbaugh) Revolution of 1992-1996 will be easy to accomplish.
>Just follow  these  few steps.
>
>	1.  Tell a friend what station the Limbaugh Show is on in your
>	    community. (Radio and TV)
>
>	2.  Tell that same friend to tell 10 friends what station the
>	    show is on.
>
>	3.  List the stations at the end of this  post with station  name
>            frequency, and city/state.  This will enable other dittoheads
>	    to tune in when away from home.  Also good for long distance
>	    word of mouth.
>
>	4.  Write to these stations to tell them that you care that they 
>	    show these shows.
>
>	5.  Write your Congressman to get a National Resolution proclaiming
>	    Rush's Birthday(?).  National Day of Celebration of Rush Limbaugh.
>
>	6.  Call ANY local talk  show you can and sing Rush's praises.
>
>	7.  Make a "pilgrimage"(loose association) to NY to watch the TV Show 
>	    being taped.
>
>	8.  Write to your newspaper arguing against any derrogatory story they 
>	    may publish about Rush or the Ditto-Head movement.
>
>	9.  Don't vote for anybody who display's Commie-Lib tendacies
>	    EVEN for town DOG CATCHER.
>
>	10. Visit your local VA Hospital and tell a veteran you are deeply
> 	    Indebted to them for their sacrifices.
>
>	11. Vote a Democrat out of office in 1994
> 
>	12. If you can  vote in either primary in 1996 vote ABC "Anyone but
>	    Clinton"
>
>	13. Vote for Jack Kemp in 96.
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>RADIO STATIONS
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Station Name	Frequency	CITY 			STATE
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>WHDH		0850 AM		Boston 			MA
WWWE            1100 AM         Cleveland               OH
KNBR             680 AM         San Francisco           CA
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>TELEVISION STATIONS
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Station Name    Frequency       CITY                    STATE
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>WFXT 		25 UHF		Boston                  MA
>WEWS            5 VHF          Cleveland               OH






--
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
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Not in a Rush to see Rush anymore
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 15:28:59 GMT

pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:

>Well , enough of this. There were times when I actually enjoyed
>listening to Rush, now I onlyu turn on the radio to make me feel
>better. I  love to listen to someone raving and accusing and
>basically making a fool out of himself. And as long as there are
>people willing to listen to htis I guess he will be around. But he
>turned quite PATHETIC and REPETITIVE.
>Sincerely

Well I guess this means that, since you won't be listening to the
Rushmeister any longer, we will somehow have to struggle through
this last bastion of conservatism without your deeply profound 
comments.  Thank you so much for guiding us this far.

 ===========================================================================|
 |                                      | Success is getting what you want. |
 |Don Wiggins                           | Happiness is wanting what you get.|
 |Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner       |
 ===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: 00066033@ysub.ysu.edu
Subject: Re: Why Rush isn't a Jack Ass
Organization: Youngstown State University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:30:57 GMT

In article <Nov18.174717.15232@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU>
be231642@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Bret Egan) writes:
 
>
>First of all he is farther right than Adolf Hitler.
>
>Assuming television and the media are liberal institutions, why would he be
>caught dead surrounded by liberalism?
>
Probably because it's the only way for him to get his message out.
I'm sure he's on every major conservatively slanted network.
 
>in our government.  The same people who thought that the debt accumulated over
>the last twelve years was functional for our country, are gloating right now
>about the lower taxes they paid during Reagan/Bush.
>
Great, now we can watch the deficit grow AND pay higher taxes.
 
>we elected two men who were taking part in those very same events.  To scare you
>some more, our president and veep also listen to the Grateful Dead.  Isn't
>America great?
>
It used to be.
 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh)
Subject: Re: Not in a Rush to see Rush anymore
Organization: UCLA Mathematics Department
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 23:32:51 GMT

>Well He might be still on all these radio stations but that does not
>mean that Rush is getting pathetic trying to prove his points. He
>used to be quite amusing when he was on the side of power but starts
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to sound more and more like a sore loser who tries to convince the
>rest of the world he is still smiling, since he was right all the
>time.

I agree with this entirely. That's why I called him REDUNDANT.

>[stuff deleted]

>Pim van Meur

David
--
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
 David A. Pugh      | Hot Dog, Jumping Frog, Albuquerque            > PREFAB
 pugh@math.ucla.edu | Best agree you and me we're only nightingales > SPROUT
|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8815 alt.rush-limbaugh:9989
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why alt.fan.rush-limbaugh????
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Date: 18 Nov 92 12:58:33 PST
Distribution: usa
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <1992Nov9.153906.28199@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) wri
tes:
>In article <69142@cup.portal.com> sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) w
rites:
>>I have been lurking in this group since I found it about a week ago.  Since
>>I was not here at its creation, I wonder if somebody could tell me what is
>>the purpose of alt.fan.rush-limbaugh??  Is it to discuss Rush and his shows,
>>or to discuss what Rush discusses?  I realize that there will be some 
To discuss what Rush discusses.  Especially since he's rarely mentioned (which
is why I unsubscribed to this group once and am considering it again.)

>>overlap, but it seem that around 80% of postings here are more related to
>>issues -- and there are plenty of groups for discussions of issues.  15%
>>of postings seem to be from people who hate Rush -- and are certainly not
>>his fans.  It appears that only about 5% of postings are appropriate based
>>on the name of this group.
My point exactly; I've posted on this once before.  But as long as 95% would
rahter argue and bitch at each other about ideology, the posts will have to
inadequately relfect the name of the group.  I don't know what makes ANY
POSTER to this group think they can change someone else's philosophy by
badgering them on the net and in e-mail.

>
>Well, your figures are a bit skewed - it's 95% of the postings that come from
>people who hate Rush, leading me to perpetually wonder why some people seem
>incapable of being happy unless they're ragging on somebody. Must be some 
Yeah, exactly.  It an arguemet fourum, not a NEWSgroop.

>sort of Ren Hoek-prototype. (Now watch, some Rushophobe will compare Rush's
>fans to Stimpy, once again showing how liberals think anyone who disagrees
>with them has a low IQ. Ah well, c'est la vie.)
>-- 
>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>                           | Support the coup!
>CompuServe: 74076,1250     |
>Internet: jrs@netcom.com   |

Jennifer, "let's get a LITTLE more accurate with those Subject: lines, eh?"
JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT
Forget Rush!  What's the Comedy Channel going to do?  All the dumb blonde
jokes resurfaced earlier this year and are worn out now.
---------------------------------------------------
I need a smiley for the sarcasmically impaired.
JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh