HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: Gizmonics Institute Inc.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:15:40 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalo.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Nov16.165128.18625@csc.ti.com>, d 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?
> 
> It's so good to see you supporting Marc's right to free speech and defending
> it to your last breath. . .

His assertion that Conservatives are the single and only Bastion of First 
Amendment Protection *is* stupid. Such obviously false nonsense deserves to be
challenged.

Want a few whacks? "Conservatives" who have advocated censorship? Ok.
lessee.....   Ronald Reagan, Jesse Helms, George Bush.  How about the 
flag burning bullshit of the '88 presidential campaign?  Bush's abortion
counseling gag rule? 

The point of this fairly trivial excercise is to demonstrate that Conservatives
are *not* immune to censorship's lure.

I do, btw, support his right to post such inane bullshit. I even spent some
years actively defending his right to spout off like a moron. Of course, if he
hangs his peepee out like that, well, someone's gonna step on it. 

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: paT bUcHAnaN
Subject: Re:  not all white males are rich and wealthy
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:55:37 GMT

In article <17NOV199215152426@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>  
mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell) writes:
> In article <1992Nov17.202947.7282@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, 
> howiegbk@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jr Howard Mea Turner) writes...
> >By inferring that all white males wish to be oppressive and hold down
> >other ethnic, religious, non-heterosexual person, you detract from
> >your argument.  You have committed the same mistake.
> > 
> >...And what I think sucks is this:
> > 
> >	Scholarship money that should be earmarked for worthy students is
> >instead earmarked for minority students.
> 
> Howard, when and if you get that scholarship you want and when/and if  
you 
> get into school (if you aren't already there) look up the difference 
> between infer and imply.
> 
> 
> + - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
> | Elliott Mitchell
> |  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
> |  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
> |  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX

Elliot, quit being such an assanine person and admit that you are biased  
against white males and that you are no better than say anyone in the KKK.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mosborne@nyx.cs.du.edu (Madeleine Osborne)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch - Day 17
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 02:07:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.173738.1394@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switze
) writes:
>November 19, 1992
>Dateline - Santa Barbara, CA
>
 It's now 17 days after Bill Clinton's election and Rush has been
 dropped from 117 radio affiliates and 36 TV affiliates.  His book 
 has fallen off the NY Times hardback non-fiction best-seller lists.
 Apparently, his fifteen minutes of fame are up.
>a
>
>-- 
>John Switzer               | "Lobbyists are circling Clinton like slugs
>                           | around a saucer of beer."
>CompuServe: 74076,1250     | -- Alexander Cockburn, LA Times 11/15/92
>Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | (P.S. Impeach Clinton, support the coup!)

I knew it, John.  Thank you for confirming what a lot of us 
already knew -- Rush's days are numbered and his so-called "fans"
would desert him at the drop of a hat.

How fickle.

Thanks for the info!!




Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Why i listen to rush
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:11:00 GMT

In article <92328.50296.L645219@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM>, 
L645219@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes...
>to all those people who feel like rush leads a bunch of 'blind' followers, i
>should ask you..what type of people do you think followed ross perot?! my god!
>talk about sheep!

If you forget all else, remember this:
More people voted for Ross Perot than listen to thEwIndBag.


+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harry Tuttle)
Subject: Re:  New details on our first lady!
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 92 18:39:10 GMT



In a previous article, Larry Henson writes:

[wonderfully witty and politically savvy material deleted]

Gee, Larry.  It took three of you to write that?  Wow.
And you are only in high school?  Wow again.

Well, I guess even 16-year olds can have a complete lack of 
comprehension and understanding of the issues.

Hey, I hate him, but at least Rush is funny. I can't believe that
you would waste all of that time and disk space to write something
that trite and ridiculous.

Kid, it wasn't political satire.  It was drivel.

Oh well, what can you expect from a high schooler?                  
 
Go back to the mall.


                                    





"We're all in this together."
Harry Tuttle
                   






Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:46:38 GMT

In <1ee1idINN6rv@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> jcorwin@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James C Spencer) writes:

>grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:



>>>22. Morality is not defined by individual choice.                  

>>"To those who say I can't impose my morality on others, I say, just watch me."
>>Rush Limbaugh knows what's best for me?  I think not.

>>Morality is relative, as is everything else.


>Your statement is an absolute statement, thus it contradicts itself.

No.  It's what I believe, but I'm aware that it is not the only truth.  Rush
can believe what he wants, just as long as he doesn't present it as an
"undeniable truth".  I would have qualified my statement, but I was responding
to an unqualified statement in kind.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: djh1003@cus.cam.ac.uk (D.J. Hrencecin)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Summary: Really, Mark... Look at your own institution.
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:52:21 GMT

In article Mark  Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

     >Perhaps my memory fails me, but I don't recall too many significant
     >instances of "liberals" fighting free speech, beyond a few trivial
     >and likely unconstitutional speech codes at universities, and a **JOKE**
     >posting proposing the rmgroup of alt.rush-limbaugh. In my experience
     >liberals have been quite forthright in defense of the First Amendment.
     >
     >Perhaps you can point out a few opposing examples for us?

     I can remember a particular election between Harris Wofford and
Dick Thornberg within the last year.  It seems that the local Women's
(oh, sorry, womYn's) Concerns group organized a screaming rally which
was intended to outscream Thornberg when he came to speak in front of
Old Main.  The rally DID occur, causing Thornberg to relocate to the
Lion Shrine so that he could speak without their cacophony.  Not only 
did the Collegian (notably liberal, as well) fail to report on his speech 
at the Shrine, but when a similar (albeit much less noisy) rally against
Wofford occurred, not only did Wofford's views get FULLY covered in the
papers, but the rally was barely even mentioned.
     To state that you don't recall SIGNIFICANT issues implies that you
are either NOT PAYING ATTENTION, or are too close-minded to realize what
is happening right in front of your face.  As far as significance, do 
you recall who WON that election?  (flames not needed to explain that
this event did not EQUATE Thornberg's loss -- I am simply stating that
suppressing one side in ANY election tends to EFFECT the result.  HMMMM)
     Oh yeah, and didn't the same liberals on campus protest the selling
of _Playboy_ magazine?  And remember the time when... ???
Wake up.

-- Dave Hrencecin (recent PSU grad)
Yeah!!! I finally got access to NetNews!!!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: lassiter@catnip.cis.ohio-state.edu (douglas scott lassiter)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:43:29 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.173602.19741@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.055944.8009@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>> How would the normal, heterosexual >male react to a shower full of nude 
>> women?  I expect that the normal homosexual male would react in the 
>> same manner in response to a shower full of nude men.
>
>Well, I don't know about you, but I generally find mass nudity rather 
>boring after a few moments.  I find I get turned on by one on one consenting
>sensuality.   When I lived by the ocean, I found nude beaches to be nice 
>because they were less crowded.  But I didn't run around with a rampaging 
>erection and didn't hop on top of all the women in sight.   Of course
>some men are disgusting animals and aren't civilized.  But should we allow
>criminals to dictate the behavior of the rest of us? Nope - we should set 
>standards, and then punish people when they violate those standards.
>
>I have generally found that most people rise or sink to meet the level of 
>performance expected of them.

 Then why do we have seperate locker rooms for men and women ? I think
 the reason for seperate locker rooms probably has more to do with 
 how comfortable one could be taking a shower with some stranger
 of the opposite sex.  I think the same discomfort, if not a more unfair
 one would accompany hetrosexual males being forced to take showers
 with homosexual men.  
	
 Aside from the above, my only true objection to gays in the military
 is that I think a lot more thought needs to be given to the consequences.
 And if the decision is made to lift the ban, it should be done slowly
 (i.e. like only allowing gays to hold certian billets that allow them
  to live in off-base housing). Before gays can be fully accepted in the 
 military, homosexuality must be better accepted by society first.
 

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: thEwIndBag bashes Rev. Jackson, again
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:48:00 GMT

I only allow myself a little snippet of thEwIndBag's show each day, after 
all, I have a heart condition.

Today he allowed as how he'd heard somewhere that Rev. Jackson was calling 
for demonstrations in the spring if Governor Clinton doesn't live up to 
Rev. Jackson's expectations.  I have access to the AP newswire and so I 
looked for myself.  I didn't find this statement (that doesn't mean he 
didn't make it, however).  I did find reference to Jackson's viewing the 
film "Malcolm X." which thEwIndBag hinted that Rev. Jackson had skipped on 
purpose.  Here follows the text of the update I sent to thEwIndBag on his 
Compu$erve account:

>>Here is what I could find on the wire with respect to any news about Rev. 
Jesse Jackson in Birmingham.  I couldn't find any reference to marching in 
the streets if Clinton fails.  As you can see, it's just the copy 
associated with the television news clip fed over NewsOne.  But you could 
send someone from the EIB building to the ABC building for whatever wire 
copy they have on the story (wink wink, nudge nudge)

ABC NEWSONE SOUTHEAST/BIRMINGHAM                                  
WED NOV 18, 1992                                                  
C/BIRMINGHAM                                                      
STATUS:EDITED                                                     

SUPERS:1.BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA                                      
2.REV. JESSE JACKSON                                              

NOTES:THE REVEREND JESSE JACKSON WAS THE GUEST OF HONOR LAST
NIGHT AT THE WEEK LONG OPENING OF THE BIRMINGHAM CIVIL RIGHTS
INSTITUTE. JACKSON ALSO GOT A SNEAK PREVIEW OF THE NEW SPIKE LEE
MOVIE BASED ON THE LIFE OF MALCOLM X.              

JACKSON APPEARED DEEPLY TOUCHED AS HE AND HIS SON WATCHED THE
THREE HOUR FILM AT THE BAMA-6 THEATER IN CENTER POINT.MALCOLM X
WAS THE MUSLIM CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST ASSASSINATED IN 1965.  
<<

me again.  Please notice that I am playing along with thEwIndBag's fantasy 
that he is "broadcasting from high atop the EIB building."  He isn't, he 
rents studio space from WABC but don't tell the limbots, OK?


+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9006 alt.rush-limbaugh:10236
From: don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch Day 15
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Date: 23 Nov 1992 00:10:20 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandstorm.berkeley.edu

In article <92327.160414MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <knauer.722462322@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu>, knauer@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu
>(Rob Knauerhase) says:
>>The Limbaugh Watch is only a waste of bandwidth in that it draws out the
>>lame and feebleminded from their keyboards and infuriates them that someone
>>like Limbaugh could be in-touch enough with the country to remain so popular.
>
>Heh. Yeah, he's so "in-touch" that his party lost the Presidency, the Senate,
>the House, and most governorships...

  The Republicans "lost" the House?  Actually they made gains in the 
  House!  And, as Rush points out, tax-increases were defeated around
  the country (here in California for example), term-limits were passed
  in all states where they were on the ballot, and the only reason
  Bush lost (by a mere 5%) was because he abandoned the policies of
  Ronald Reagan, which the people thought they'd be getting in Bush.

>
>But don't let me intrude with annoying reality. :-)
>
> "But Dr. Radium, was that necessary?" "Rez, _everything_ I do is necessary."
>[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
>DISCLAIMER: If PSU knew I had opinions they'd probably try to charge me for it.

					-Don Bromley
					don@ocf.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 23 Nov 92 17:51:11 GMT

In <1992Nov22.170236.27026@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:

>In article <grendel.722136033@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu
>(Alyosha Bourgea) writes: 
>>In <1992Nov18.020350.12683@netcom.com> kc@netcom.com (Dameon D. Welch) writes:
>>
>>>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>>>>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.               
>>>>
>>>>Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.
>>
>>>But most of them preached facist left-winged ideas.
>>
>>HELLO!  Remember the coup?  Remember Gorbachev getting kidnapped?  Remember
>>the breakup of the Soviet Union?  It happened because a RIGHT-wing faction
>>of the government, that is, the old guard of Brezhnev/Lenin ideology,
>>opposed Gorbachev's progressivism and willingness to allow state's rights.
>>Calling Soviet government fascist left-wingers is way too convenient.

>Actually, as I recall, they weren't exactly thrilled about Gorby's
>free market experiments.  So are you saying that a conservative is
>someone who disliked the free market.  What an odd and convenient
>definition; e.g. right wing= bad guys.

Conservative = dedicated to preserving the status quo.  In Soviet government,
the free market experiments were a liberal and progressive idea.  The coup
was staged by officials who wanted things to go back to "the good old days",
i.e., conservatives.  Besides, I don't think Gorby's free market experiments
were the only reason for the coup.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner)
Subject: Re: THE LIMBAUGH DIR/ALLAMERICAN RE
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:54:13 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
 KTSA           0550 AM         San Antonio             TX
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>TELEVISION STATIONS
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Station Name    Frequency       CITY                    STATE
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>WFXT 		25 UHF		Boston                  MA
 KMOL           04 VHF          San Antionio            TX (1:05 & 5:30 AM)
>
>Lets start the Revolution!!!!!!!!
>
>Robert R. Eno
>A Conservative Voice in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Massachusetts
>
>The views are mine not those of UMASS Lowell


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch - Day 17
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:40:34 GMT

In <nate.840@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:

>jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>>session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>>>Huh? So what? What has this got to do with the price of eggs in China?

>>Zack, only you could possibly think that anything in the Rush Limbaugh 
>>newsgroup would ever have anything to do with the price of eggs in China. 

Yes it does!  The price of eggs in China is 26 yen, which is the same number
of active brain cells in Limbaugh's head!

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jbn@photon.com (Joe Naiman)
Subject: Re: Gay Marriages?
Organization: Photon Research Associates, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:42:24 GMT

Since heterosexual marriages require a license with all the appropriate
state-mandated tests, and gay marriages don't, domestic partner
arrangements discriminate against heterosexuals and thus violate
laws which forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.

Joe Naiman

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: paT bUcHAnaN
Subject: Re: Rush lets something slip ...
Organization: Allegheny College
Distribution: world, na
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:57:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.195540.10044@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  
tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
> Today, Rush was talking about Bo Snerdly's heritage, coming from the  
"African
> Egyptian" culture.  As he was talking, he mentioned something about the
> writing not surviving on "papayas".   A minute or two later he (or one  
of
> his staff) caught himself and he corrected himself to "papayrus".  He  
then
> started reminisicing about papaya, and the prevalence of papaya juice  
shops
> on 8'th avenue, and how one young woman had told him that she would only
> indulge in sex if she had papaya juice, becuase otherwise her blood  
would be
> too acidic (or something like that).
> 
> Rush then said that "I have had girls say no for a lot of other reasons,  
but
> this was the only time because of papaya juice."
> 
> Hmmm, Mr "Unmarried Sex is a Sin" just stated that he was soliciting sex
> from 'girls',  and he also admitted that he wasn't having a lot of luck.
> 
> Maybe that is why he is so down on Kennedy's philandering?  Because  
Kennedy
> is succesful while Rush is striking out?

What a stupid, ridiculous comment.  Obviously you're upset because Rush is  
the hottest thing in the country right now, and everyone except a  
priviledged few hate Kennedy.  Give up your pathetic excuse for bashing  
Rush.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh