HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 04:06:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.153806.22425@afterlife.ncsc.mil> acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:

>The Washington Post Book World for September 27 reports that
>Limbaugh's book is Number One in Hardback non-fiction, Clinton-Gore's
>book is Number One in Paperback Non-Fiction. 
>
>Yeah, I know comparing paperbacks to hardbacks is apples and oranges,
>but can the crap about how LImbaugh's book was doing so incredibly
>well compared to Clinton-Gore's.

	The best analogy to the sillyness of this thread is to point out
that the Grateful Dead is indisputably the most sucessful touring band
in history, particularly lately, when they have been able to sell out
Giant stadium as often as they were willing to play there.

	All this from a band that has had maybe 5 serious hits in their 
entire 30 year career. All it takes is a bunch of die hard fans and viola,
instant stardom. I think that it's safe to say that Rush is to politics 
what the Grateful Dead is to modern pop music.

	Yea, Rush fans are the political equivelent of DeadHeads. I like 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.fan.rush-limbaugh:6046 alt.politics.bush:7117 alt.politics.clinton:7720 alt.politics.elections:14608 talk.abortion:39315 alt.sex:31283 talk.politics.misc:48525
From: varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:19:58 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In <1992Sep28.173810.11007@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
>>> Do please tell us Bruce, how inconvenient you found it to be when you
>>> were pregnant.
>> Today's word of the day is "Straw man".  Can everybody here say, "Straw
>> man"?  Claiming that a person should not oppose murder because of their
>> gender is silly.  If someone considers abortion murder, then they are
>> morally bound to oppose it.
>Lots of pro-lifers have spouted "Abortion is Murrderr!!!" but I've never
>seen any of them come to grips with the implications of their rhetoric.

	Well then why don't you tell us what the implications are?

>> I prefer his moral stand to your sniping, empty attacks.

>So you prefer to be judgemental and condemning with no other facts before
>you than "a woman has had an abortion?"  That's your idea of a moral stand?

	Let's try, "a woman has had an abortion for reasons other
than physical danger to her life". What other facts do you need? I think
that if I was given "person X murdered person Y for reasons other than
danger to his/her life", it would be pretty clear cut. 

>Perhaps you'd like to take a seat with the Pharisees[1] over there?

>[1] one the meanings of 'pharisee' in my dictionary is: "a person marked by
>hypocritical, censorious self-righteousness.

	Please show me the hypocrisy in my position.
			Bruce
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: TV Show
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:55:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep17.203339.1@cstp.umkc.edu> rdale@cstp.umkc.edu writes:
>> Isn't Rush so ridiculous?!?!?
>
>	You've grasped Point #1!  Rush *is* ridiculous!  He's also
>sarcastic, satirical, full of parody, and funny.  People who don't
>see that are the ones who grump around, whining about "equal access
>to opposing views" and such.

Sounds like you need to order that vocabulary extender that Rush touts on
his program.

Just to let you know, "ridiculous" is a pejorative description.  It is NOT a
positive statement about Rush, but a negative one.  It means "arousing or
deserving ridicule", synonyms are "absurd, preposterous, laughable".

Rush is also illogical, whiny, and funny -- but funny-strange, not
funny-hah-hah.  He *is* sarcastic and satirical, but not in a pejorative
way.  He is more full of self-parody than anything else.

Note that I have listened to him for more than just a few minutes -- I
listen to him quite often.  But I find I get angrier and angrier the more
I listen to him.

The *ultimate* in thoughtless opinions is his statement that "trees are just
crops!".  The sad thing is how many people he influences -- the aptly named
"dittoheads".

Oh, well -- I suppose it is better to let Rush do your thinking than to turn
to someone more like Jim Jones.  At least I don't think Rush will try to get
you to drink poisoned Kool-Aid.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

"Give some poor black woman a couple hundred bucks from the public trough,
 and there's always some snoop behind her in the grocery line just waiting
 to call Rush Limbaugh and gripe that she bought a six pack of beer to wash
 down her government cheese.  Why weren't the defenders of public monies
 out tailing Charles Keating, who probably bought a six pack of breweries
 at the public expense?"
			    -Ian Shoales
			     from "BEER FOR THE POOR:
				   The Rich Get Richer, The Poor Get Budweiser"
From: jberger@novell.com (John Berger)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:52:46 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: Novell, Inc.

In article <1992Oct6.001338.27975@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.212140.20360@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) 
writes:>
>>Madonna's new $4 million estate in Coral Gables took a "big
>>beating, though." Windows were broken and the landscape was
>>damaged. Rush says that this is no big deal for Madonna - "it's
>>not the first time that some guy blew into town for a night,
>>trashed her, and then left."
>	This was the Rush Limbaugh quote I was talking about.
>	It seems that he _relished_ the thought of her being sexually
>humiliated, which I find rather sick. Yes, sick. I think sex should be
>for enjoyment, not for humiliation, whatever Rush Limbaugh may think.
>
Could this be a sneak preview of Madonna's new movie? Rush as her love 
slave...Rush ON Madonna (man on top, as God intended)...the image is making 
me cringe just thinking about it....

Oh wait, it's NOT about her movie?  It's about bad jokes & sexist humor? 
Never mind.....
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Feminism
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:50:37 GMT

ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says:
>>      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.

>The problem is, Mr. Limbaugh conciders ANY woman who does not fit the
>narrow and bigoted definition of "homemaker" as a radical feminist.

    I wouldn't say that. I would say that those women leave him at a non-
plus since his categorization system obviously falls short in attempting 
to describe them. Rush goes out of his way to disclaim his jibes at 
feminazis as refering to only a very small group of people; he uses similar 
tactics when talking about radical feminists and environmentalist "wackos".
Essentially he makes big sweeping statements about what those movements 
stand for, and then he backpeddles and admits that his comments only apply 
to a very few of the most outrageous leaders of those movements.

>In other words, any woman who works outside the home, or who is in
>any way politically active (with the exception of Phyllis Schlafley (who's
>picture, I understand, sits beside his bed, and gives him an object on
>which to base his sexual fantisies (grin)))

    This is where you loose most of your credibility. To claim, even in 
jest, that *anyone* could base sexual fantasies on a photograph of Mrs 
Schlafley is patently absurd.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: ccohen+@pitt.edu (Caleb N Cohen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Test, again...
Summary: Test of posting from well outdated Pitt machines!
Keywords: Test
Date: 2 Oct 92 07:18:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Note: This was listed as a test, why on earth are you reading it?

Test, please ignore...




Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson)
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Organization: Carleton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 11:55:19 GMT

In <1992Oct1.235346.23307@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes:


>How many people do you know that bought or have read Clinton-Gore?  The
>vast majority of people I know are Democrats and are going to probably
>vote for Clinton-Gore.  Yet I do not know one single person that has read
>'The Comeback Kid' or Gore's book on the environment -- not one.  

As Rush would probably say, "Liberals can't read."

heh-heh.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6265 alt.rush-limbaugh:6478
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Barbie Talks, secret message
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:40:29 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

>MORNING UPDATE: September 29, 1992
>
>Some women actually think that Teen Talk Barbie (tm) should shut
>up. This doll has angered some female educators because it dares
>to say "math class is tough." Judy Blitch, Chairwoman of the
>Education Department at a major college is outraged; she along
>with a dozen of her students called Mattel, who makes the Barbie
>dolls, to complain that the doll discourages girls from taking
>math. According to Blitch, "Barbie represents an important part
>in girls' lives, and can influence thinking."

Obviously it's still playing a role in Judy Blitch's life ;)

>Ann Bryant, Executive Director of the American Association of
>University Women, is also mad. Bryant says that by giving the
>message that math is tough, Teen Talk Barbie "could be turning
>off girls to math and science." Rush is amazed by these
>complaints - "if a doll can turn women off to studying math or
>science, then it's time to stop listening to dolls and start
>listening to people!"

Though we will never know the answer to this question, I wonder 
whether Judy Blitch was among those who characterized Dan Quayle's
Murphy Brown statements as trivial.  That is, "it's just a TV show,
not reality so get a grip... how can a TV show effect people's lives?".

At least Murphy Brown uses real people and not dolls.  You know, if
people cannot be influenced by TV then neither can they learn from it;
shows such as those found on PBS are therefore overrated by this argument.
Perhaps we could save some money and program dolls to teach children 
instead of using people

Mike Best
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:56:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Rush's email address and New Book
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny) writes:

> Also...he mentioned "no one" has written an article about WHY his book
> has done so "well" on the NYTimes Bestseller list.  I'd like to invite
> anyone who feels like it to write such an article (1-3 pages) for a
> paper I work on called SOUND News and Arts (has been called a leftist
> paper AND a right-wing piece of propaganda...people sometimes can't seem
> to notice the COMMENTARY header on the page).  If you're interested in
> writing such an article...just email me.

One line will suffice:

People buy into controversy.

doug
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6309 alt.politics.elections:15215 talk.abortion:40643 alt.sex:31963 alt.politics.clinton:8542 alt.politics.bush:7773 talk.politics.misc:49633
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:02:18 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1anjshINNr55@bigboote.WPI.EDU> jseaver@wpi.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>In article <adams.718034098@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>jseaver@arkose.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>>
>>>	Very, VERY few people would complain about abortion when the mother's
>>>life is in danger.  However, if the woman is pregnent through voluntary sex...
>>>Well, you could say she's committed herself.
>>
>>Not at all.  Assume that she is using effective birth control, and using it
>>properly.  She still gets pregnant.  Where did she agree to pregnancy?
>
>	It depends.  Is she responsible for her actions?  You don't do anything
>without possible consequences.  She should accept the consequences for her
>actions (to me, this sounds like a tough statement to disagree with.  However,
>I've been amazed before).
>						-Jay

This strikes me as a weird way of phrasing the question.  If a woman gets
pregnant, she can't refuse to accept it; she has to do something about it
either way.  If by "she should accept the consequences for her actions"
you mean "she should be forced to carry the fetus to term," well, we don't
agree.  She does have a legal recourse, however much you may dislike it.

-Kristy


-- 
   +==========================+============================================+
   |Kristy Patterson          |"Jack's favorite author is the man who wrote|
   |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu |'Pull tab to open.'"      -Jewel of the Nile|
   +==========================+============================================+
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: arras@bfws46.forwiss.uni-erlangen.de (Mike Arras)
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country, NOT!
Organization: FORWISS, Uni Erlangen, Germany
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:54:05 GMT


In article <1992Oct5.105549.1@gacvx1.gac.edu>, peckman@gacvx1.gac.edu writes:
>dear Rush fans,
>It would be nice if you would realize that conservatism has led to most of our
>country's current woes and if George Bush is re-elected, our country will fall
>even farther behind Japan and Germany both educationally and economically. 
>It's time for a change.  Our country needs fewer Rush Limbaughs and more Bill
>Clintons.  Rush spouting off about goofy liberals will get us nowhere.  But
>Bill Clinton as our next president will offer our country something it has
>sorely lacked in the past 4 years...hope for the future!

	Ha!  What a joke.  You mean the same kind of hope Carter brought us?
No thank you.  What Germany are you talking about anyway?  The one with
doubled-digit umemployment and universities where students have to sit on the
floor because they are so over-crowded.  The Germany with mortgage rates
above %14 and housing costs that only the truely rich can afford?  The Germany
with growing Neo-Nazi hate?  The Germany where the tax on all purchases are
14% and gas costs $4 a gallon?  I'll take Reagan's tax cuts anyday over failed
socialistic programs.

Mike
arras@forwiss.uni-erlangen.de
From: stecher@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (Jack Stecher)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Love to hate him don't just hate him
Summary: Too good to be true
Date: 2 Oct 92 14:26:54 GMT
Organization: Department of Economics, Univ of Minn

In article <1992Oct1.103100.1477@cnsvax.uwec.edu> bakerdj@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes
>
>I'm a Liberal [sic] Demecrate [sic] and I like to watch the show becuase it is
>entertainment [sic] so what if he is totally Biased [sic]. It is fun to watch.
>He gets up
>there and makes a total ass of himselfe [sic]. It is fun to watch [sic] his use
>of retoric
>to bolster his points. It is fun to watch as he calls his distortions the
>truth. It is fun just to hate him! 
>
>He is another of those people who [sic] people love to hate.
>
>Dan the curious one
>

Alex must have found another userid.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6138 alt.politics.perot:1728
From: ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Karl Witte)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Date: 30 Sep 92 23:46:37 GMT
	<phurley.37@tamu.edu>
Organization: Freshman, MCS general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

I say we all call 1800-925-1300 and make Perot thinks he has lots of
support so that we can laugh at him when he gets barely more than
Marrou/Lord.

Erik Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: snh1@crux1.cit.cornell.edu (Sanjay Hiranandani - N2MRZ)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: Cornell Information Technologies
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date:  6 Oct 92 13:52:58 GMT

lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

>	This was the Rush Limbaugh quote I was talking about.
>	It seems that he _relished_ the thought of her being sexually
>humiliated, which I find rather sick. Yes, sick. I think sex should be
>for enjoyment, not for humiliation, whatever Rush Limbaugh may think.

	Is it wrong for a conservative to have a sense of humor? It
seems to me that in this country it's okay for anyone except a  
conservative to make fun of others.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: na, usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 22:43:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.190854.21294@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <92272.192542KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>
>>
>>Well, you have to realize that the Net is a liberal haven, with a low
>>percentage of conservatives.  (Don't ask me why, it's just a fact.)
>
>Thats due to the fact that you have to be able to type (even with just one
>finger) to use the Net.  That eliminates most conservatives.
>
>Have a nice day :)  No, on second thought, have a repressed, regulated,
>guilt filled conservative day.

Now I must admit this is the type of liberal argument I'm quite used to
with no facts and considerable name calling.   I believe that there is
still room in this counntry for diverse opinion, political correctness
not withstanding.  Personaly I believe my arguments are sufficiently strong
to allow me to resist the overwhelming urge to call you an idiot.
Have a day:)  No second thoughts required.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6302 alt.politics.elections:15181 talk.abortion:40584 alt.sex:31944 alt.politics.clinton:8507 alt.politics.bush:7742 talk.politics.misc:49570
From: IQTI400@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (macphil)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:54:46 GMT
Organization: IUPUI

In article <1992Oct5.145257.29413@RedBrick.COM>
jfr@RedBrick.COM () writes:
 
>  accept and take the consequences for their actions.  It just
>  depends on whose ox is being gored.
 
Hence my slogan:
 
gore Clinton in '92.
 
P.S.
 
:)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Taxing the Rich (was
Date: 4 Oct 92 13:32:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Web BBS 1-513-436-9011 6 Lines 1200 News groups 50,000 files!
Reply-To: todd.paulus%theweb@meaddata.com (Todd Paulus) 

TK.In article <LARRY.92Sep28081726@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (E
  . Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
  .>In article <1992Sep22.182122.6964@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galil
  .physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
  .>   In article <AWERLING.92Sep18203048@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WER
  .G) writes:
  .>
  .>So? No one is demanding ALL the money from the rich. They just want the
  .>rich to pay a fair, reasonable share of taxes. If the middle class has to
  .>pay ever increasing taxes, then why shouldn't the wealthy also (who seem to
  .>have an inordinate amount of political and legal power anyway)? I'm not
  .>arguing the justification for increasing taxes, I'm arguing that we all
  .>should bear our tax burdens with some degree of equity. When Grandma ends
  .>up paying a larger percentage of her retirement income to taxes than a large
  .>profitable corporation, something is wrong.

TK.Equity....and again, "Fairness is a Flat Tax!"

Yeah, there has been a lot of talk about the flat tax over the years.
It sounds good, but the basic arguement against it is the fact that your
basic survival needs, as an individual, decrease significantly, as a
percentage as your income grows.  So, the politicians generally want the
graduated tax to increase the percentage the richer folks must pay.
That sounds nice, too, but the reality is that only the rich create
jobs.  You take away too much of that money, and the rich will put their
income in areas that protect it more - who wouldn't.  Many of those
areas include 'savings' that don't generate new work, employment, etc.
At some point you reach the Swedish solution - nobody's rich, but nobody
wants to live there, either, at least anyone who might be ambitious.  No
simple solutions, are there?  On the other hand, the one nice thing I do
like about the flat tax, is that the cost of collecting it is extremely
low - no deductions, fancy forms, loopholes; just 2 lines - how much you
got times x% = tax you pay.  End of 1040 form and billions of IRS budget
dollars, and oops!  all those people will be out of work, their lawyers,
judges, no IRS cops to beat up people and gleefully take away everything
they own.


Regards,
Todd

---
 . OLX 2.2 . When in doubt, mumble!
From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Gore-Basism
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:04:38 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

In article <lcjeqcINN59g@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu>, lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape) writes:
> 
 [deleted]

     Since the word "Gorbasm" is already in the Limbaugh Lexicon,
I propose we use the word "Gore-asm" to mean "a fake and phony
feeling of bliss, euphoria, excitement, ecstasy, and nirvana
when pondering all the wonderful things Al Gore will do for
the planet."  I also propose the word "Gore-gy" (or we can
spell it "G-orgy") to signify "a wild overindulgence of
a group of Gore supporters in the proposals and plans
of Al Gore." 
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:12:15 GMT
Subject: Re: Deja Vu all over again
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA