HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peterd@polari.online.com
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Seattle Online Public Access Unix.  (206) 328-4944 (all lines telebit-equipped)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:41:20 GMT

jseaver@yaya.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:

>>>>I wasn't aware that death was an appropriate consequence for having sex.
>>>
>>>	No, death isn't.  Having a child, however, IS.
>>>
>>>	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.
>>>
>>>						-Jay
>>
>>Hmmm...interesting point, IF (notice it's a big if)  the folks
>>engaging in sexual activities were actually aware of ALL the
>>consequences of their actions, and the possible alternatives. There

>	Small question:  How can someone NOT know that having a baby is a
>natural consequence of sex?  I mean, this is not exactly unknown information;
>I suppose it's possible someone wouldn't know this, but REALLY REALL REALLY
>unlikely.
 
Welcome to the real world.  Not only are there people who don't know
how they got pregnant, they had no clue as to how they were going to
be delivered of the child (an old phrase, but an apt one.)

The first posters point appears to be that if a woman has voluntary sex
AND gets pregnant, then regardless of any threat to a woman's health
she can't have aan abortion.

So if there is any possibility of fatal gestation complications,
just say no and do not have sex. "As We All Know" the only reason for
sex is procreation.

bishwah.

chus
pyotr

>>are many people out there that believe that they are not going to
>>get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) because they are practicing
>>birth control such as the rhythm method, or premature withdrawl, or
>>douching with a coke, or countless other methods. One thing many
>>people do not have is accurate information regarding sex, and
>>the associated risks and responsibilities. Can you say education?

>	I may be in the minority for conservatives, but I have very little
>trouble with sex education, or, indeed, education of any sort.  One cannot
>expect people to act responsibly with too little data.  

>					-Jay
-- 
                 Peter D. Hampe, EKA peterd@polari.online.com
Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow. "Its a simple procedure involving Lasers."
                       Will be President for Food.
-- 
                 Peter D. Hampe, EKA peterd@polari.online.com
Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow. "Its a simple procedure involving Lasers."
                       Will be President for Food.
From: young7905@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: rush
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:38:14 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

To all Rush's Supporters wherever you are:


               RUSH MUST DIE!!!!!!!!!

                    Bye!

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Subject: Re: Two down... one to go!
Organization: NRAO
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 04:21:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.014250.4861@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.004510.22586@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>
>>Rush Limbaugh is the MOST listened to on the radio 
>>and the MOST read in the non-fiction books section... In history.

  [more praise for Rush deleted]

>How true - of course, you realize that by stating this you're going to 
>get flamed just as much as Rush does here, and for the same reason - 
>both of you state the simple truth.

Could someone please document the "In history" part of this.  It
does sound like Rush blowing his own trumpet.
-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@something.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Anita Hill -- a thought
Date: 16 Oct 92 05:37:11 GMT
 <92289.004415KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>

Everyone treats the confirmation hearings as if they were a trial, where
Thomas was found innocent.  It was nothing of the sort.

If Anita Hill has actual evidence that Thomas sexually harassed her, then why
on earth doesn't she formally press charges?  If she's got everyone so sure
that it happened, if it DID happen, then isn't it her right (if not her
RESPONSIBILITY) to take him to court, rather than just showing up at a
confirmation hearing?  I don't understand.

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner)
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:47:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.050228.16939@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>In a previous article, jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner) says:
>
>>In article <LARRY.92Oct8111459@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct6.131337.27752@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner) writes:
>
>
>
>[various mindless anti-liberal rhetoric deleted for the sake of good taste]
>
>
>>>You are hereby certified for rank of MegaDitto..
>>>
>>Thank you very much. I AM a Mega DittoHead!
>>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Translate: "I am a mindless idiot who has no clue WRT how to think for one's
>self, therefore, I just agree with the drivel Limbaugh puts out, because
>so many other people do."
>
>Thank the fates that when Bush falls, Rush will fall...
>
To you who called me that wonderful name: Are you one of those poor bastards
who just sits at the terminal all day who has no friends and get his kicks
by spilling his immature drivel all over the Internet?

I thought so.

You know something, I agree with him for many reasons. I think for myself,   
unlike you who believes EVERYTHING on TV.

May God make his wrath known to you, you insignificant scumbag!

Hey I listen to Rush for many reasons. I was actually thinking for myself
even BEFORE I started listaning to Rush. What we have here is a lonely boy
who wants to live off the governemnt largess for the rest of his life, IMHO.


And another thing: Rush was around when Carter was President! And his ratings
were the highest in his old market. 

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Re: Rush is bad for our country, NOT!
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:38:18 GMT


In a previous article, daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) says:

>In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller) writes:
>
>> 
>> Thank the fates that when Bush falls, Rush will fall...
>> 
>Don't count on it.  There is a big market out there for what rush
>is selling.  If the "conservatives" lose, all these people will
>pay rush to console them and tell them they are right and that
>all the evil and stupid media dupes elected Clinton.
>
>He will make a mint making fun the Clinton administration and
>reminding his followers that they must rescue the world from
>liberalism in the next election.  No, rush is correct, he will
>be around for a LONG time.  There is no reason whatsoever to
>expect that he will not.
>
>doug
>
Indeed?

Several years ago, there was another idiot who was uncomfortably
like Limbaugh.  He was radically liberal , had a huge following of
people who were convinced that every word he said was the unequivicable
truth, he had fame, he had money, his name had household word recognition.
He had a tv show, and a radio program, and he wrote best selling books, and
everyone either loved him or hated him.

And then he made a mistake, and got caught in a lie.

And almost instantly, he was gone, and hasn't been heard from since.

His name:

Morton Downey, Jr.

Funny how history has a way of repeating itself...
 
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  //  Newsflash from the Vatican: *
*      the KelleyMan:Kelley L. Miller  //  "Easter has been cancelled...*    
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  //  Someone found the body...."   *
****************Know God...No peace.  No God...Know peace.***************
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious rights and responsibilities
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:47:53 GMT
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona

In article <phurley.45@tamu.edu> phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.194027.27391@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.
>aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>>Christian principles - isn't that what the inquisition was based on?
>
>What insidious innuendo! If what you're saying is that people have used 
>religion to justify their behaviour then you must think us very naive.

Do you mean to say that people _HAVEN'T_ used religion to justify
their behavior?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Brady & Darman (Re: Thank you for answering my question! Maybe)
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:54:06 CDT


In article <9592@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <BvzwA8.3sL@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> 
> >No dispute whatsoever. In fact, Darman is hinting that he'd be the new
> >Treasury secretary in a second Bush term, as if we needed any other
> >reasons not to vote for Bush! And Bush himself doesn't see that Darman and
> >Brady are responsible for much of the trouble he's in. 
> 
> I saw in this morning's paper that Bush says that Brady and Darman will
> not be on his staff if he is re-elected.  If true, this is the best news
> that I have heard in weeks.

If Bush thinks Brady & Darman are worth dumping in a 2nd term, why not
dump them now?  Same with Bush talk of putting Baker in charge of his
economic program.  

The reality is that Bush is thrashing around for ideas that can
keep him from going down in November...


-- 
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
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:43:25 GMT

In article <92282.175214KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

|> Yep, like that idiotic non-story about Bush's supposed affair with one of
|> his aides.  People actually believed this, without the aide herself even
|> making the allegation.  If not for the polls, this kind of attack on Bush
|> would make me think the Clinton camp was desperate.

	It might, if the Clinton campaign had initiated the story. As it
is, the allegations date at least as far back as the 1980 republican
primary, when it was seen as a valid character issue.

	I suppose you could view the character attacks on Clinton as
indicators of a desparate Bush campaign, which, of course, they are.

-- 
                               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
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle Smashes Gore...
Date: 15 Oct 92 00:17:45 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <1992Oct14.170451.14269@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
->	Gore seems to have improved since 1988, but he's still pretty 
->awful in front of the TV. On the plus, he was slightly more dignified then 
->Quayle, but not enough to make up for the pettyness that they both
->were displaying with sich enthusiasm. 

 Was this the first time a presidential or vice presidential candidate
was ever hissed at during a debate ? What an awful performance. Even the
admiral out did him on his most important topic, the environment. What
would happen if Gore went up against a conservative first stringer ?

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:52:32 GMT
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, csmith@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

> In regard to finding people who have read Rush Limbaugh's book but not
> Clinton's or Gores, I have not been able to find a single bookstore that
> has Rush's book!  It is not display (though lots of liberal tripe _is_) and
> when I ask for it, the booksellers look perplexed as if they never heard
> of it.  Could it be there is conserted effort to keep the book out of
> reader's hands, at least until after the election?

Man, you have GOT to start going out into the real world more often.
> 
Rush's book is all over the national chain stores.   Prominently displayed
at your local Waldenbooks and B-Dalton.

doug
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Stuff about Clinton
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:45:33 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct13.212358.18538@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.124400.4789@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner) writes:
>>Here's some more Clinton jokes:
>>
>>If Bill Clinton get elected, how will he and Hillary travel around?
>>
>>Bill rides in Air Force 1 and Hillary rides the broom!
>>
>>I just noticed something. Hillary Clinton looks like Witch Hazel in a
>>cheap disguise.
>Look at Hillary on TV, then look at Mary Matalin, now tell me, who would you
>rather look at for the next four years???

I would rather look at Mary Matalin any day rather than Hillary.

Have you seen her from several years ago. Talk about ugly.
She had THICK glasses and looked about 12 years old then!

To quote Rush, "Hillary is coyote ugly."
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Religious rights and responsibilities
From: bthomas@dumaine.gac.edu (Barbara L Thomas)
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:56:59 -0600
Distribution: world, na, usa

In article <1992Oct7.224355.13246@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.143255.1891@gacvx2.gac.edu> bthomas@perdita.gac.edu  
(Barbara L Thomas) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct6.194027.27391@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>  writes:
> >> Christian principles - isn't that what the inquisition was based on?
> 
> >If you were trying to be offensive, you succeeded
> 
> Thank you..  this _is_ alt.fan.Rush_Limbaugh after all!   Just trying to
> follow in the footsteps of the self proclaimed "great one".
> 
> >                    If you want to have an intelligent debate of a  
subject,
> 
> Then I wouldn't post it in alt.fan.rush-Limbaugh!
> 
> 
> P.S.  You mean you find the fact that the Inquisition was founded on
> Christian Principles offensive?  Or do you find the reminder of that
> rather unpleasant little fact offensive?   Would you prefer we forget
> that little annoying fact, so that the radical right can go ahead
> with their new version of the Ecclesia Militans without hindrance?

No, what I found offensive was your use of the phrase "Christian  
Priciples" which obviously a concept that you don't understand, and  
including it in a response that is nothing more than a newsgroup "well, I  
don't like you either, so there," because you couldn't come up with  
anything more intelligent to say instead of sharing a logical opinion (any  
opinion formed on serious thought and consideration, no matter if it is  
different than mine).
--
Barbara L. Thomas
"The World may never know."
bthomas@nic.gac.edu
From: phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Columbus Day, 1992
Date: 15 Oct 92 15:20:19 GMT
Organization: Computer Technology Group, TAEX

In article <1992Oct14.074728.1579@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley 
Miller) writes:


>In a previous article, jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen) says:

>>In article <39415@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>>)
>>)A good thing G*d does not read these newsgroups, otherwise man would
>>)she be upset.
>>
>>hmmm .... God as a swear word.  Then what about Jesus?  Or ... Holy Ghost?
>>
>>please get your 'facts' straight before you post.  (HINT:  God isn't a woman)
>>NOR a swear word.
>>

>I suggest the following:

>A: consult a Rabbi.  It is recomended that the word "God" not be written
>as it can be distroyed, and is, in effect, a sign of disrespect. (in the 
>jewish faith...)

>B: Get a sence of humor.  there is OBVIOUS sarcasm at play.

I am not a Rabbi or a Jew but I do believe you are mistaken about the word "
God." God is generally used in its capitalized form to describe (in 
America) the Supreme Being as described in the Bible. The Hebrews' commonly 
used name for Him is Elohim which is usually rendered as Lord. The name of 
God as was given to Moses is considered so sacred that it was never written 
down. Whenever it was necessary to record God's given name, it was rendered 
as YHWH (even this is Aglicized by using our alphabet).

Philip Hurley               "It is absurd to say that you are
T.A.E.X.                    especially advancing freedom when you only
Computer Technology         use free thought to destroy free will."
(409) 845-9689                              -- Chesterton
p-hurley1@tamu.edu             I, too, disclaim.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Two down... one to go!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 01:42:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.004510.22586@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>Rush Limbaugh is the MOST listened to on the radio 
>and the MOST read in the non-fiction books section... In history.
>
>If he becomes the MOST watched person on TV, it'll make Rush Limbaugh
>the absolutely most paid-attention-to person in the United States of
>America, all around. 
>
>The man is a genius. 
 
How true - of course, you realize that by stating this you're going to 
get flamed just as much as Rush does here, and for the same reason - 
both of you state the simple truth.
-- 
John Switzer               | Why am I voting for Clinton? Because... 
                           | Bill Gates: 36, CEO Microsoft, $6 billion
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Me: 36, Tech Writer, 1978 Diesel Rabbit
jrs@netcom.com             | Screw the nerdy rich! (at least 'til I get there)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:55:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.212940.16972@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:

[Summary of Madonna's career deleted...]

>After all you have included in your summary you demonstrate quite
>adequately the values she ridicules and these are indeed traditional
>values.

	Like what? And how does she "ridicule" them?

As to your question as to whether I know of her promiscuous lifestyle
>I can only judge by the film you conviniently mention for me.  Truth or dare
>was decadence  on parade for me.

	What do you mean by "promiscuity", anyway? And how was the
movie decadent? What is self-evident to you may not be self-evident to
others.

As to any possible jealousy on the part of
>Mr. Limbaugh, in life you will findthe confident are seldom jealous of anyone
>let alone pop stars.

	But I think that there _are_ things that he could find to be
jealous about in her. She is more athletic, better-looking, more
famous, and richer than he is, for example. And she has succeeded
while being a lot more positive than someone whose main act seems to
be "Something going wrong? Those *liberals* are to blame." She
certainly does not make endless sneering RL-type remarks about
Catholicism (it would be fun to make some up), for example, though she
has criticized the Church on several occasions. I do confess having
some criticisms of her; she seems awfully naive to be surprised, as
she seemingly has been, by the Vatican considering some of her work
blasphemy. Anyone with any knowledge of the attitudes toward sex of
those old men of the Vatican can easily tell that they are not likely
to be fond of someone who makes out with a saint in a video. And one
last thing for RL to be jealous of. Those fans of hers who like to
dress like her have shown more creativity than those who simply chant
"Ditto" at RL's remarks.

/Loren
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

I once heard Rush say something on his show along the
lines of, "Liberals  think you are to stupid to decide for yourself.
Liberals think you are too stupid to run you own life."

This sort of line is one that is typically made by libertarians.
I am curious why Rush does not consider himself libertarian.
In other words, how does he defend his position that economic
freedom should be maximized while still seeming to imply
that personal freedoms need to be restricted.  Why is Limbaugh
not a libertarian?  Is it simply because it is not a popular
enough opinion amongst the people he panders to for a living?  


doug
From: luhmanjp@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu (Joe Luhman)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Think about it for a minute
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:24:01 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota - Morris

In article <1992Oct16.094619.7729@iscsvax.uni.edu> young7905@iscsvax.uni.edu  
writes:
> Instead of criticising any "liberal" that has a solution, why not try and  
>think of your own solution.
 
Yea! Free thinking, the only way to go!

>I got into this newsgroup hoping I would at least one
> person would be a little critical of what Rush does, but to my dismay no one  
>is at all.

There seems to be quite a few 'no one'(s) in this group, IMHO.

> Is it really that satisfying to pan everyone's ideas on how to make
> this world a better place to live. try and lose the label conservative and
> really evaluate what you believe by your own set of criteria not the criteria
> of the conservative philosophy. Maybe you'll see the solutions proposed by us
> "bleeding heart liberals" aren't so stupid after all.

Try to lose the liberal label and evaluate what you believe in by your own set  
of criteria, and not the criteria of ANY one philosophy.  Maybe you'll realize  
that critical and independent thinking are tasks that must be mastered and do  
not always lead to and on particular ideology, although they might...

We vs. they attitudes lead to handicapped thinking and result in demagoguery.
Stamp them out.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Joe Luhman    |  luhmanjp@cab.mrs.umn.edu                        |
| U of MN-Morris|  luhmanjp@nxsci173a.mrs.umn.edu(NeXt Mail        |
| UMM # 243     |   (612)324-2566                                  |
| Morris,MN     | "If you dont like what you see here,get the funk |
| 56267         |  out...you can always leave the country"-Extreme |