HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:34:51 GMT
Organization: IBM Rochester
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <6037@news.duke.edu>, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
|> msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon) writes:
|> ->Most people have trouble believing Clinton (indeed, it's the cover story 
|> ->of this week's Time Magazine) and Dan kept hammering the issue."Do you really
|> ->trust Clinton to be President?"  I think most would answer "no".  And he and
|> -
|> -MOST PEOPLE keep saying "Yes." Every day. Haven't you been listening to
|> -the public opinion.  Polls, the man on the street, the voter's registration
|> -numbers.  
|> -
|> -Most people are saying "No more Bush" "No more trickle down economics"
|> -"No more Republican lies."  You just aren't listening.
|> 
|> But that isn't a "Yes." You've just listed anti-Bush statements, not
|> pro-Clinton statements that answer the aforementioned question.

The conservative "minority" has gone into denial.  They know that
the end is near.  America needs a change.  America wants a change.
America IS coming apart at the seams.  Bush is out of touch.  Quayle
has the intellect and manners of a 6-year-old.  Come on folks, this
is for our own good.  


Jared Dahl

Opinions expressed are mine, not my employers.
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: George Bush - Pro-CHOICE!!
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:52:14 GMT
Organization: IBM Rochester
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

George Bush is pro-choice.
How could he say that he would support
his own daughters decision to have an
abortion if he wasn't!   Or does he
support it for the RICH and his family
and no one else???


Jared Dahl

"Rush is as bloated as his ego." - my REPUBLICAN neighbor
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7314 talk.abortion:42427
From: kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:44:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

In article <1992Oct13.001059.23259@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>You're afraid of a science fiction story?? Just wait till you read the
>part about the riot police attacking the pro-abortion people with white-
>posphorus instead of teargas, and how anyone escaping the WP attack will
>face swift and certain execution.  The good news, lethal injection is
>outlawed, the bad news (for criminals) is that firing squads and the gas
>chamber using cholrine gas are the order of the day.  Executions will be
>televised, in order to make an example of the criminals.  But then, it's
>only a story....                                     for now :)

Afraid of a story?  No.  Afraid of people with these sorts of ideas?
You bet.  The fact that anyone (especially someone who claims to be
pro-*life*) thought this up is rather frightening.  But you know what
I think the most psycho part of the entire thing is?

The smiley at the end.  
-- 
   +==========================+============================================+
   |Kristy Patterson          |"Jack's favorite author is the man who wrote|
   |kristyp@mac.dartmouth.edu |'Pull tab to open.'"      -Jewel of the Nile|
   +==========================+============================================+
From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Murphy Brown
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:42:42 GMT
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
NntpPostingHost: 144.163.6.20

In article <1992Oct6.212502.12927@dbsun.uucp> hulsey,
hulsey@dbsun.uucp writes:
>>Most people are difficult to sum up in two words or less, as it is
>>popular to do (whenever possible) in the electonic media.  Rush,
>>however, holds the distinction of being very easy to sum up in one
>>word, since he _is_ truly onedimensional.
>
>Which dimension, width or girth?

I suppose it would have to be girth, as we all know Rush is not known
for being very "broad" minded.
From: rovero@java.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:53:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA

In article <MATT.92Oct14122845@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu writes:
>
>I'm confused.  Yes, Clinton participated in protests against the
>Vietnam War (*not* against the United States; are right-wingers really
>unable to see the difference?) in England.  But in what sense is
>England the enemy of the United States?  England and the United States
>have been at peace for nearly 200 years.

I'll bet dollars to donuts that Bill Clinton was *NOT* protesting just
the Vietnam war.  He was protesting U.S. participation in the Vietnam
war.  He probably never had the moral courage to protest North Vietnamese,
Soviet, or Chinese support for the same war.  One interpretation might
be that he "sympathised" with their side.

Bill Clinton.  Moral midget and commie sympathizer.  It's your vote....


-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Keywords: Rush Liberal Media Anita Hill Clarence Thomas
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:18:51 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: news@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <23915@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.214550.14858@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>, greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>> A polygraph is about as reliable as a Magic 8 Ball, and considerably
>> harder to use.
>
>Ah yes ... the conservative "when it serves me I love it otherwise it is crap"
>approach to life - I love it...

I'm consistently opposed to any "method" which fails to produce. At best,
polygraph results are an "incomplete success."

>> The problem with the whole situation was this: One person made an
>> allegation that CAN NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED, and all sorts of hearings
>> were held. 
>
>  This is pretty much the case whenever there is no witness to a crime is it
>not? This man was up for one of the most important positions in our govt.
>if he has no ethics I want to know about it... 

I agree. If Anita Hill has no ethics, I want to know about it. Problem is,
there's no way to tell.

>> People were yelling for him not to be confirmed because either
>> a) Anita has an honest looking face, so she couldn't possibly lie; or
>
> or she passed two lie detector tests and ol Thomas wouldn't take one...

From a purely judicial point of view, consenting to a polygraph test may
imply approval for the device's use in court. Thomas was *very* insistent
that he remain impartial and hide any biases he may have about controversial
issues.

Besides, the burden of proof would be on Hill. My point here is not that
the allegations shouldn't have been brought to light. I encourage this;
I agree with you that on the Supreme Court, as in the Presidency, character
is important. But, Ms. Hill failed to prove anything -- but it still wouldn't
die. I'm glad it did come up -- it raised the level of awareness about a
nationwide problem. But the fact remains: nothing was proven. It's extremely
unlikely that anything will be proven.

Let the man be.

							- greg
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Subject: Re: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER JOSEPH McCARTHY BUSH
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 17:20:01 GMT

rovero@wake.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:

>There's only one problem with this.  McCarthy went around accurately
                                                           ^^^^^^^^^^
>calling people communists and making a big deal about it BECAUSE:

Sorry, history shows us that most of his accusations were INACCURATE.

>Communism, especially the brand of Marxist-Leninism actually in
>practice during the 20th century, IS and WAS EVIL!  It was WRONG.
>It was the greatest threat to freedom and real national independence
>ever seen on the earth. 
>
>What really pisses the liberals off:  Joe McCarthy was RIGHT!

Yes, Marxist-Leninist Communism was pretty evil, and to just it as evil,
MCCarthy was right. However, his methods of "routing it out" were WRONG,
WRONG, WRONG, again as history has shown us.

-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:37:20 GMT

> = (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>> = (Steve Novak) writes:
>>> = (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>>>Perhaps I am the challenger here, but there must be others that feel the same
>>>way I do.   I cannot accept that I am the only person who belives that the
>>>unborn have a right to live.

>>Simon, old chap - you're most puzzling, and getting irritating.

>I never thought a debate was a bad thing.  

I never said it was.

>>Besides not being able include the post you're responding to,
>>additionally you can't READ any posts on t.a.?  I mean, page just
>>through ten _articles_ and you pretty much cover the spectrum of
>>viewpoints.
>>
>>(What is the nature of your net access?  I really don't get it.)

>I am heading over to t.a. shortly.

OK.  What's the relevance?

>Now if am getting irritating, please contact the appropriate admin people about
>revoking my access.

What makes you think I want your access revoked?  Unlike Steve Chaney, I
don't operate that way.

Since in this post you seem to have solved the problem of including
those you are replying to, maybe now you can solve the mystery for us on
why you think you're the only pro-lifer on t.a.

>If so requested, I can personally have my access deleted here.

Why would you do that?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:42:26 GMT
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
> jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) says:
> 
> >Question for the conservorrhoids: Why has Clarence Thomas hidden from the
> >public since his confirmation? Could it be that he finds it painful to
> 
> He's been busy.

You're just making excuses for him. The SC has been in session for a solid
year, and other justices have given interviews, public addresses, etc.
Thomas is definately hiding.

> >keep telling the same lie? Could it be for the same reason he could not
> >bring himself to call Hill a liar, even though he was prompted in that
> >direction by the Senators many times?
> 
> He doesn't like to say bad things about other people.  It was pretty obvious
> he was calling her a liar, making him say it would have been redundant.

He implied she was a liar by denying her allegations. That's not the same
thing as calling her a liar. The difference is psychological. He could lie
about his own behavior but not about someone else's. I at least give him
credit for that much morality. However, given the other forceful statements
he made that weekend, the fact that he could never accuse Hill outright of
lying is very revealing.

> Just remember: _at the time that people were watching the hearings_ (I almost
> said 'trial,' since that's practically what it was), most people believed
> Thomas.  In the past year, he's had better things to do than tour the country
> to drum up support for himself, unlike a certain Oklahoma professor who shall
> remain nameless.

More excuses. Hill is not ashamed to defend herself, most likely because she
was telling the truth. C'mon. We've all been in trouble before. When you're
innocent, you can't wait to tell everyone who will listen of the injustice
perpetrated against you; but when you're guilty, you keep your mouth shut
and hope the thing will go away quickly. It amazes me how people let their
politics get in the way of grokking these fundamental aspects of human
nature. Thomas has made no defense of himself since that weekend and the
public's approval of him has fallen as a result.

John
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH: OUT OF A JOB?
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:01:11 GMT
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

In article <1992Oct12.130351.15324@sinkhole.unf.edu>, jdough@unf6.unf.edu (Joseph Dougherty) writes:
> 	You're kidding, right? First off, Clinto doesn't have a prayer  of
> getting elected, despite what you read in the papers or hear in the polls.

Oh I see - "Ignore that man behind the curtain..." - give it up will you
please - the race is over Bush is out. Only a moron would think
otherwise...

> 	However, barring some real tragedy, suppose that cretin did win. 

Glad to see Bill doesn't have a prayer of winning..

> Well, I think he's going to hear four years of pure hell from Limbaugh. 
> Like it or not, Mr. Limbaugh's show, his TV program, and his book are here
> to stay. 

 If his show is on a year and a half from now I will be very surprised...
it is a very poorly done show and his humor gets old quickly... I suspect
that people will really not care to listen to some fat under-educated
tub of goo attacking their president every night...

> Don't underestimate his intelligence one bit...the man isn't 
> having the kind of success he is by being stupid. 

 Well he isn't an intellect - sorry - the guy plays to the lowest common
denominator (thus the conservative stance) and isn't afraid to voice
bias and in effect prejudice at every turn - that is why he is a
success of sorts...

> written, concise, and at the least, interesting. In fact, there's a 
> passage about his dealings with the Pediatric AIDS Foundation that really
> surprised me. When I think of the stupidity of the people involved in 
> that situation, I realize how intelligent the guy really is.

 You sound like some sort of sheep - following this incredible leader - the
guy is an over-weight, under-educated, prejudiced twit who plays
the pseudo-intellectual - he is entertaining but he is not someone you
should hero-worship...


				gln
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7415 alt.activism.d:3885 alt.politics.elections:16793 alt.politics.bush:9158 alt.politics.clinton:10421 talk.politics.misc:51779
From: tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Quayle won the debate.
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:24:49 GMT
Reply-To: tesco@bumetb.bu.edu (Dances With Babes)
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Boston University

Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.
Most people have trouble believing Clinton (indeed, it's the cover story 
of this week's Time Magazine) and Dan kept hammering the issue.  "Do you really
trust Clinton to be President?"  I think most would answer "no".  And he and
the Admiral had Gore running away from his book on the environment (supposedly
his strong point), making him look like an extremist.  yeah, he exaggerated
with the facts, but so did Gore.  Gore looked so stiff.  How many times did
you hear "Bill Clinton and I think ...." at the beginning of a sentence?

This is NOT to say that Quayle is a good VP or that Bush is a good president.
But reading the papers today, you have to believe that either 1) they watched
a different debate, or 2) they are biased.  I mean, it wasn't even close.


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
From: weverett@jarthur.claremont.edu (William M. Everett)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: child, fetus, offspring
Organization: Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:41:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.004404.1947@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>In <1061@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct02.042824.158278@watson.ibm.com>
>>margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>>>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.
>
>>No it doesn't.  You're perfectly correct that some dictionaries (especially
>>abridged ones) don't explicitly include the words "unborn" or "fetus" in
>>the definition of "child" (although most do).  However those that don't,
>>like "American Heritage Dictionary", don't exclude the unborn in their
>>definition, i.e. that don't say "born offspring", they just say
>>"offspring".  Are you going to tell me that the fetus isn't an offspring
>>too?  He most certainly is.
>
>    Surely a fetus is offunspring? BTW, isn't it anazing how all the
>feti in RTL scenarios are always male? That wouldn't be significant
>would it?
>
>   Naahhh.                                                               MP

The CORRECT english term for singular, third person is 'he'. It does not
necessarily denote a male or a female.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Summary Thurs 10/15/92
Date: 15 Oct 1992 05:15:27 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa680@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Vern Morrison)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu



     Today, Rush and his listeners, a bunch of brain-dead sad sacks who
haven't read fifteen books in their lifetimes, will piss and moan about
Bill Clinton, the man who, in less than three weeks, will be elected
President of the United States.
-- 
     Vern Morrison              |    
     aa680@po.cwru.edu          |   read my .sig: join the Clinton/Gore
     vern@cray.csuohio.edu      |               email team!  
     Parma, Ohio: the 'burbs    |     write 75300.3115@compuserve.com     
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: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:06:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.210535.22592@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.135526.29243@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>
>psmith@iies.ecn.purdue.edu (Paul Smith) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Oct8.075103.1222@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>> >
>> >Perhaps I am the challenger here, but there must be others that feel the same
>> >way I do.   I cannot accept that I am the only person who belives that the
>> >unborn have a right to live.
>>
>> You're not the only one - I agree with you... *they* just try and make you
>> feel that way - which is pretty easy to do here on Usenet and in liberal-
>> media-land.  Don't get discouraged.
>> -Paul
>
>RIGHT ON!
>
>---------------------------------------------
>William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.
>
>"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
>-- Ronald Reagan


Thanks for the support.   I thought for a minute the liberals had taken over
the net.

Simon

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon dreams of stomping on those who oppose him
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:34:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.204441.21232@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> kristyp@coos.dartmouth.edu (Kristy Patterson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.001059.23259@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>You're afraid of a science fiction story?? Just wait till you read the
>>part about the riot police attacking the pro-abortion people with white-
>>posphorus instead of teargas, and how anyone escaping the WP attack will
>>face swift and certain execution.  The good news, lethal injection is
>>outlawed, the bad news (for criminals) is that firing squads and the gas
>>chamber using cholrine gas are the order of the day.  Executions will be
>>televised, in order to make an example of the criminals.  But then, it's
>>only a story....                                     for now :)
>
>Afraid of a story?  No.  Afraid of people with these sorts of ideas?
>You bet.  The fact that anyone (especially someone who claims to be
>pro-*life*) thought this up is rather frightening.  But you know what
>I think the most psycho part of the entire thing is?
>
>The smiley at the end.
>--
Go to your local bookstore, and go to the section that carries the action/
adventure novels, and you'll see books that have the same levels of violence
in them, and those authors have never been in any trouble as far as I know.
And take a look at the 1971 film "A Clockwork Orange", and the dark humor
of "Dr. Strangelove"--that film made fun of nuclear war and yet it became a
classic. I plan to illustrate how such a system might come to power. nThat'all
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:58:10 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Tom Selleck on Arsenio
 <23505@optima.cs.arizona.edu>

In article <23505@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell)
says:

> Considering what group this is posted in this is pretty ironic - catch
>a lot of liberals on Rush's show lately???

Sure, he lets them on every now and then, if they seem intelligent enough to
not bore the audience.

To be fair, though, Arsenio is in business for the same reason as Rush:
to attract viewers.  He wants his guests to make him look good, just like
Rush does.  That's common sense.  So, it would be stupid for him to let
Ronald Reagan on his show and start arguing with him, and probably winning
(if Ron can stay awake :-)

I sure wasn't implying that Arsenio was wrong to limit conservative opinions
on his show, while churning out dozens of liberal opinions a month.  I was
just surprised at the concept of a conservative even being ON his show...

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion