HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Bunker Mentality (Was: Flush Limburger)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:57:36 GMT

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

 >>>The Rush phenomenon reminds me of the Archie Bunker show.....
 >>>The producers were shocked to learn that a significan portion of 
 >>>the audience was identifying with Archie..not realizing that Archie
 >>>was the object of the ridicule for his bigotry.

>I've heard it also.  From my psych teacher, when we were discussing
>desegregation.

And let's not forget all those alligators in the New York sewers.  I know
it's true; I heard it from some teacher somewhere.

 >>Can you provide at least one reference to substantiate, without
 >>question, that Rush is a "bigot"?
 >>I'd really like to know.

>Definition (roughly) BIGOT: Someone who discriminates against another because
>                            of a group that the other person belongs to.
>                            Thus, all anti-homosexual type people are bigots.
>                            So are all anti-feminists.  So are all
>                            anti-aardvarks (a.s.s. joke =)

Oh, I get it.  You mean like anti-Limbaugh fan, anti-conservative,
anti-religion, anti-military, anti-military heterosexuals...in other
words, the liberal flame baiters who normally slobber all over their
keyboards while reading this group?

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Somewhere in Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  world
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:18:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.230601.15301@u.washington.edu>, scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper) writes...
>In article <BzF8Ew.6r1@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>>Can you provide at least one reference to substantiate, without
>>question, that Rush is a "bigot"?
>>
>>I'd really like to know.

> 
>Definition (roughly) BIGOT: Someone who discriminates against another because
>                            of a group that the other person belongs to.
>                            Thus, all anti-homosexual type people are bigots.
>                            So are all anti-feminists.  So are all
>                            anti-aardvarks (a.s.s. joke =)
> 

Ok.  Let me rephrase....

In what way, specifically, has Rush shown himself to be a "bigot" by the
above definition?

Remember, I asked for a single example to substantiate the assertion
by a few that Rush is a bigot.

I did not ask for the definition of "bigot", btw, but thanks anyway.

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4   
Reply-To: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Organization: Somewhere in Bloomington, Indiana
Distribution:  world
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:41:52 GMT

In article <22580003@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>, tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes...
>The Rush phenomenon reminds me of the Archie Bunker show.....
> 
>The producers were shocked to learn that a significan portion of 
>the audience was identifying with Archie..not realizing that Archie
>was the object of the ridicule for his bigotry.

How was this conclusion arrived at?  Was it a scientific poll?

Or is this just hearsay, as usual?

> 
>Its great for Rush...he doesnt have to be intellectual (the audience
>probably reads and comprehends at about the 6th grade level-that's
>reader's digest folks!) and can make outrageous statements and not
>have to back his words up.

I think not.  6th grade level minds typically do not have enough
wit and logic to understand most of Rush's points.

Quite the contrary, in fact.  One MUST be intellectual in order to
understand many of his points (ie he leaves it to his audience to
understand them, rather than spelling them out).

Actually, 6th grade minds are mostly possessed by liberals :-)

> 
>Certainly please don't think that I'm knocking the man....after all
>he is getting rich being a bigot...and I still have to work for a
                            ^^^^^
Can you provide at least one reference to substantiate, without
question, that Rush is a "bigot"?

I'd really like to know.

Jim Graham 

        -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
                          Neither do they speak for me.
 ______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu                              |
|           dolmen!jgraham@moose.cs.indiana.edu                        |
| BBS:      The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
|            (812) 334-0418, 24hrs.                                    |
|______________________________________________________________________|
From: Ed.Sterrett@f166.n363.z1.fidonet.org (Ed Sterrett)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Thewindbag Against Mo
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 00:58:00 PDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:363/166

Hi Nathan,
      
 NE>     Being registered to vote can be inconvenient if because of being 
 NE> registered you get called to serve on jury duty. I can imagine circumstan
 
  The *new* thing now, since so many try to avoid jury duty by not 
registering to vote, is to use the list of driver's licenses to select 
prospective jurors.  At least in Florida, as well as several other 
states, driving a car (legally) also makes you subject to call for 
jury duty.
 
 NE> in which (for instance) a single mother doesn't have an alternate daycare
 NE> provider and therefore wants to avoid the possibility of being called for
 NE> jury duty even though the chances are slim that she'd be called and even 
 NE> less that she'd be denied a hardship dispensation. I've also known a coup
 NE> Type-A personalities who didn't want to register because they really didn
 NE> have a valid excuse to get them out of jury duty. Doing their civic duty 
 
 
  Of course, the easiest way to get out of jury duty is to have one of 
the attorneys disqualify you.  All ya gotta do-  When they ask you 
their questions during the selection process, just answer "Is this an 
executable offense?  Can we give 'em death?"  Doesn't matter what the 
question is, just give them that answer..  <g>  Of course the 
prosecution may want to keep you, but the defense will just say, 
"NEXT!"
 
 
 
...QWKRR128.V2.2 [R] - The child is father of the man..
--  
        Ed Sterrett  -  via FidoNet Node: 1:363/42
             UUCP:  -  ...tarpit!tous!business!166!Ed.Sterrett
             ARPA:  -  Ed.Sterrett@f166.n363.z1.fidonet.org
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: RUSH?
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 17 Dec 92 09:48:58 CST


In article <1992Dec16.203322.514@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, saunders@luther.che.wisc.edu (Brian E. Saunders) writes:
> In article <1992Dec17.001118.29516@tc.cornell.edu> inner-circle@crash.canon.co.uk writes:
> >Hi. I saw a CD in the store today by a band called "Rush"
> >and was wondering if this has anything to do with the movie
> >"Rush" or maybe Rush Limbaugh (who is really funny!)
> >Should I get it? I didn't like that movie much but I listen
> >to Rush Limbaugh every day on the radio and heard he had an
> >album out.
> >
> >Sorry if this is a newbie question but I've never heard
> >of the BAND "Rush" before.
> >
> >Any ideas? Thanks.
> 
> Yes, they do.  Their original drummer, who most people call John Rutsey, is
> in fact really Rush Limbaugh.  Though he supposedly has had nothing to do
> with the band since Neil Peart (one of the best damn drummers in the world)
> replaced him before their second album, he really is the inspiration for
> quite a few of their songs, e.g. Red Lenses, New World Man, etc...

Just think, had Neil Peart not come along, Rush Limbaugh would still be 
drumming and all the "dittoheads" would be wondering around, lost in the
wilderness.

It reminds me of a baseball tryout the Washington Senators had in the mid-50's.
They were interested in a pitcher from Cuba, but decided not to sign him.
The pitcher, Fidel Castro, returned to Cuba and decided to get involved in
politics...

-- 
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
Subject: Re: Disappointment with this group...
From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Date: 15 Dec 92 13:43:19 EST
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <1992Dec15.043210.24310@u.washington.edu> ryanm@stein.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:
>
>I just joined this group today and already hate it.  I love to listen to
>Rush Limbaugh when ever I get a chance.  Infact I can't watch his show
>until I workout (it works too!).  I don't get to listen to him very often
>because all the computers in my shop cause horrible interferrence.  I
>thought this news group would help me keep up in the Ditto head stuff.  I
>now have to wade through a pile of puss from Libs/Nazis/Fems/Humanists
>just to get one of relevance.
>
>It was mentioned that a moderated conservative news group should be formed
>is a great idea.  I welcome a chance to discuss ideas without the above
>people butting in.  I enjoy a good arguement but not on every comment
>made.  I hope we can create a news group like this.
>
>I think the people who have invaded this news group and turned good
>fruitfull discussions into a garbage pit typifys the liberals as childish
>and without restraint.  I do not feel this way with all liberals and some
>have good points and valid discussions but the majority are trash
>conversations.  GROW UP PEOPLE!  --Ryan

Well, all the "trash conversations" are inherent in any newsgroup,
not just conservative ones.  If we liberals were to form a newsgroup
of our own, a lot of conservatives would post there and there is
nothing we could do about it (except possibly get a moderator, which
would sort of defeat the purpose of discussing politics in an 
unfettered way).  No, the only alternative is to defend your views
well and make "liberal" use of the kill file :)
Also, this newsgroup bases itself on Rush's show, which both liberals
and conservatives watch and enjoy commenting upon.
Chris
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10315 alt.rush-limbaugh:11809
From: gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY !!!
Organization: Gizmonic Institute - Home of the "Super G Burger"
Distribution: world 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:24:11 GMT

<1992Dec10.215827.17547@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
>In article <168B9D70B.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU> VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
>>>USING POLITICS TO BUST CLARENCE THOMAS FOR ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL
>>>HARASSMENT IS OKAY POLITICS.
>>>USING POLITICS TO BUST BOB PACKWOOD FOR SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF
>>>SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS BAD POLITICS.
>> 
>>Repeat what?  Something you said or you claimed I said?
>
>It was on ABC News this morning: the media blew up all the comments
>people had about people wanting Packwood removed. But of course I listen
>to the latest news on the radio. 
>
>These are the people without whom you'd never have seen Clinton get into
>office, remember?

And here I thought it was all those Republicans who voted for CLinton
because they were tired of being lied to by Bush and tyrannized by the
right wing.

...
>>Environmentalists running amuck?
...
>No. How about I go to your city council (preferrably in Carmel) 

But Steve, he doesn't live in Carmel.

...

>Or, better yet, why don't I become a logger and get turned into a
>jobless man 

But Steve, this is a free country and you can become whatever you are
qualified for.

>Oh, and what about the OZONE disaster that DOES NOT exist! THAT is a
>hilarious one!

Hmmm.  I see your medication is wearing off.

>And most of all these places where all this sewage runs through back
>yards is OUTSIDE AMERICA!!!

You don't get around much, do you?

>BTW, asshole, you try and remove me from this earth. I know damned well
>humans are NUMERAL UNO on this planet. No animal, no tree, no damned
>SPOTTED OWL is better than human beings. 

What does that have to do with you?

>                                         And if you wackos try and make
>them more important then us, you'll wish the Second Amendment DID NOT
>EXIST. Because we will tell you to fuck off and it'll take a war for you
>to force your environmental wacko laws on us.

Little boy, you should really not play on your parent's computer.

>	I most sincerely hope you read that and read it twice.

Why?  Do you need it proof-read?

...
>>What a stunning essay!  You should be quite proud.  And when is your
>>sixth grade commencement ceremony?
>
>Just after you get out of diapers, perhaps? 

Ha ha ha.  What a stunning retort!  You are so funny! <psst - quick,
somebody call 911>


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.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: HYPOCRISY!!!
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 19:16:47 GMT

<1992Dec13.204349.1@gacvx1.gac.edu> cnordstr@gacvx1.gac.edu said:
>In article <168B9D70B.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU>, VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
>> In article <1992Dec10.192800.13725@csus.edu>
>> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
[Thomas appointment and sexual harrassment charges]
>I agree that racial equality will never be achieved by quota, but we all know
>what wouldv'e happened had George Bush NOT chosen a black man/woman to replace
>Thurgood Marshal: he would've been branded a racist forever, and liberals would
>again take up the battle cry of "Republican racism strikes again!". The
>hypocrisy on the left recently HAS been blatant. Two examples (other than
>Thomas/Hill) are:
>1)  The rape charges against William Kennedy Smith. Why didn't we here outrage
>from the feminist camp on this one? Answer: WKS's uncle Ted might've been
>damaged, and we all know how he stands up for the rights of women (just ask
>Mary Joe Kopekne).

Are you kidding?  You didn't subscribe to talk.rape, did you?  You didn't
watch much news after the trial, did you?  Every station for several days
after the trial had some spokesperson for a women's group or anti-rape
group speaking about the travesty of justice.

>2)  The sexual harassment charges against Senator Inoway (D-Hawii). Again, why
>no demand from the NOW gang for justice? Same reason as above.

They were afraid of tainting Ted Kennedy's rep??  Give me a break?  WHo
thinks he has any reputation left to damage?

>The liberal media and the Democrat-controlled congress are hypocrits.
>'Nuff said.

ALL politicians are hypocrites to some degree or another.  You're just
figuring this out?


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.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ryanm@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly)
Subject: Misconseptions of Christianity...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:11:13 GMT


I have seen many positions stating that Christians want to supress free
speech and everything else.  I will not attempt to explain individual
views or excuse others only explain from a Biblical prospective.  I will
explain what I have seen in the Bible and is only an interpretation.


[BIBLICAL VIEW]

The Bible doesn't promote any kind of censorship.  God has never imposed
his will on people (Christian, Jewish, other regions or Athiests).  He has
placed a free will in everyone to make their own decisions.  If one wants
to do something he/she will pay the consequenses in the end.  If
someone wants to be gay, listen to bad music or act like a lunny
(sp) that person has the right to.  However we have laws that govern how
people interact.  These laws should protect people.  These laws should govern
who can receive music (age) but not outlaw it from adults.  Art protraying
obsenities about any religion, sex, sexual preference, or anything should
not be sanctioned or payed for by the government.  If somebody wants to
make obcene art on their own time and money have that right as long as it
doesn't use minors or distributed to minors.


[PERSONAL VIEW]

I do not believe that censorship should be placed on art, music or any
other form of communication.  However, children should be protected from
obsene art.  I could make a case for censoring art but others could make a
case censor nonpoliticaly correct speech (such as my Christian views). 
Censoring doesn't solve the problem of an evil corrupt (IMHO) society.

I extreemly dislike obsene art but will not make it censored.  I welcome
challenges to my ideals and love to challenge others ideals.  Censorship
would only ruin that.

I will probably get a few flames for not being a righ-winged extreemist or
for having a view of disliking obsene art but oh well.

Lets keep this civialized and I will continue to post.  --Ryan

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  Ryan McNeilly                    Internet: ryanm@u.washington.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"You can't deal from a position of weakness"  --Alfred Thayer Mahan
Moral:  Protect the 2nd Amendment!

My comments and opinions are my own and nobody elses!!!!!

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kennedy@asuvax.eas.asu.edu (Ralph Kennedy)
Subject: Re: Summary Fri 12/4/92
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Arizona State Univ, Tempe
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:35:02 GMT

shindle@ocf.berkeley.edu (Richard Michael Shindle) writes:
> Anyway, I would have to agree when I try to discuss what Limbaugh
> says to see if he is correct or that is opinion is valid, those
> that I talk to in Berkeley are very much against him and for
> reasons that have no basis in fact. ("he's an idiot", doesn't cut
> it.) So I would like to hear from thos of you who don't like
> him, valid reasons why. (God, this is long-winded to say I agree.)

     Ok, fine.  Let's cut to the next R.L. show summary:

> Message-ID: <1992Dec14.171334.16306@netcom.com>
> Summary: Unofficial Summary for Wednesday, December 9, 1992
> Keywords: Rush Limbaugh Unofficial Summary
> Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:13:34 GMT
> Lines: 922
> 
> Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show
> 
> for Wednesday, December 9, 1992
> 
> by John Switzer

     [ text deleted ]

> *BREAK*
> 
> Phone   John from Richmond, VA
> 
> John had thought he had seen it all during the campaign as far as
> the media is concerned. Either the media has gotten incredibly
> arrogant or the military has turned very liberal; John can't
> otherwise understand why the Marine Corps made a landing under
> the cover of darkness only to end up on a beach that was full of
> reporters, their cameras, and massive floodlights.
> 
> Rush repeats his comments that what happened yesterday validates
> the Pentagon's policies during the Gulf War.

     Ok, only a total idiot would buy the above
garbage.

     First, the Pentagon knows through its
intelligence sources that there will be no danger
to the landing troops (else why would they in their
right minds give strategic details in advance to the
press?  Do you really think they'd experiment on
something like this if there were a danger?)  Then,
they go ahead and tell the press exactly where and
when they will land.

      So.  Then when the press shows up with lights
and cameras, the Pentagon can act surprised and
indignant and applaud as Limbaugh screams, "See,
the Pentagon was right in restricting the press
during the Gulf War!  The press can't handle not
having restrictions!" and the idiots who take Rush
and his show seriously actually buy the whole thing
hook, line, and sinker.  Unfortunately for the
Pentagon, no one who really matters is stupid enough
to buy it and can see right through such self-serving
nonsense.

     Your friends from Berkeley say, "He's an idiot."
Well, actually he may or may not be.  He may be an
idiot, but more likely he's a very clever man who
realizes that a lot of money can be made off of the
ignorant masses.

--Ralph Kennedy      {ames,gatech,husc6,rutgers}!ncar!noao!asuvax!kennedy
                        {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,oddjob}--^
                                          ^---------------The Wrong Choice
                             internet: kennedy@asuvax.asu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: depken@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Craig Depken)
Subject: More thoughts on economic illiteracy (b)
Summary: Economic illiteracy is campaign fodder 
Keywords: economics, illiteracy, Rush, disclaimers 
Organization: University of Georgia Economics Department
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 06:26:55 GMT

More thoughts....no flames, just decent comments. Read part (a)
for disclaimers, etc.


craig.


b) No recovery is in sight (Bill Clinton): 

	PEBC claimed that we were still in recession during the campaing.
	Here are the economic truths. A recession, by anybody's definition,
	is a NEGATIVE growth in GNP (GDP) for two quarters or more.
	
	As early as last January, leading and lagging indicators pointed
	towards positive growth, albeit rather small. Positive growth
	for one quarter removes the definition of recession for most 
	economists. 

	Further definitions: Double-dip recession: This type of recession
	occurs when a short period of growth, over two quarters or less,
	is followed by another period of negative growth. Hence, you can
 	not have a double dip recession unless there was some growth
	in between.

	Tripple Dip Recession: Carry on the logic and you see what this
	is supposed to mean. During the campaign many people were fearing
	such an animal, mainly because we have never seen one. The fact
	is that a tripple-dip recession could not be feared if there was
 	no growth in the first place. Hence, there was no "recession" in
	true economic terms, though the campaigners had their own way
	of representing economics. As a lover of the subject, I do not
	appreciate how any of the three major candidates treated the
	economic discussions during the campaign, but I am especially
	bitter at the Perot and Clinton groups for their representations.



More to follow.....


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc