HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: 7 Apr 92 12:12:29 GMT
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <92097.215116JCS130@psuvm.psu.edu> JCS130@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>                      Mega un-dittos
>                      Jonathan C. Schon
>                      JCS130@PSUVM
>
>             P.S.  Who would re-elect a guy with an idiot as a running mate(no,
> I am not refering to Rush Limbo at this time)?
>
>     Larry King is 100 times better than Rush Limbo!!!!!!!!!!

First of all, spell his name correctly.

Two, Larry King is the rudest talk show host in the land!!

Three, Rush doesn't want the job and

Four, Only an idiot would listen to Larry "The Asshole Liberal" King!
-- 
========================================================
"It hit me like a hammer!" --Huey Lewis
Reach me at:  jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu
========================================================
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Poll John Gotti vs. Bill Clinton
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 14:14:27 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Apr8.213123.8157@CERIS.Purdue.EDU> jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath) writes:
>
>Speaking of polls, WLS in Chicago ran a poll with the "dapper
>don" vs Clinton yesterday.  Gotti won by about 9 to 1.  Guess the
>respondents are tired of the lesser of two evils ;-{).

Well, not too surprising - Gotti certainly gets all of the homeless 
vote! :-)

-- 
John Switzer-Hoek          | "You hear it, you see it, 
(note yuppy hyphenation)   | you want to turn away, but 
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | you CAN'T! It's Ren and Stimpy!"
jrs@netcom.com             | Happy, Happy, Happy, Joy, Joy, Joy!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith)
Subject: Re: No murder of babies!
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 92 00:33:47 EDT

> >The baby is a human life from the moment of conception.
> 
> Do you suggest that we charge women who suffer "spontaneous abortions" with
> murder as well?
> 
Of course not.  We do not charge people with murder for things over which
we have no real control. If a man is struck by lightning while on my 
property, unless negligence could be proved, I would not be charge with
anything!  However, if I handed him a metal cable attached to a lightning
rod . . .

 This is from
     orson@bluemoon.rn.com
who doesn't have their own obnoxious signature yet
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: JEZOR@YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu
Subject: Re: e-mail addr
Organization: Yale University
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 16:23:18 EDT

 
Thanks.  I got it.  Please don't send it anymore.  I'll write, and if
it bounces back, I'll just send it again!  {Jonathan Ezor}
From: steinar@faust.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: No murder of babies!
Date: 16 Apr 92 13:01:15 GMT
	<1992Apr15.032936.2150@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Flodnak, Inc., Trondheim, Norway

Bill Coleman writes:
>Can't this discussion be moved to talk.abortion?

Of course not.  Limiting discussions to appropriate groups only, particularly
the controversial subjects that are known to cause flame wars wherever
they go, is contrary to the Higher Purpose of Usenet.

Does anybody really need a 8-) for this post?

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 16:45:53 GMT

In article <92097.215116JCS130@psuvm.psu.edu> <JCS130@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> .... deleted ...
>I would support neither Bush nor Clinton if I had to make a choice between them

You mean if I point a gun at your head and make you choose, you will
refuse? Will you really do that?

>A lot of people obviously
>feel the same way as I do (i.e. Brown and Buchanan supporters) but there are no
> canidates affilliated with a party that can win in the fall.  That is why I
>see a chance for Perot, Cuomo, or Benson to be the next president.
>
>                      Mega un-dittos
>                      Jonathan C. Schon
>                      JCS130@PSUVM
>
>             P.S.  Who would re-elect a guy with an idiot as a running mate(no,
> I am not refering to Rush Limbo at this time)?
>
>     Larry King is 100 times better than Rush Limbo!!!!!!!!!!

Judging you by your statements, I wonder who the READ IDIOT is.

Ed
From: jeffb@gatecom.UUCP (Jeff Breitner)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: No murder of babies!
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:36:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: gatecom.Ve78iB1w164w
Organization: Gateway Communication Inc.

clmn@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Coleman) writes:

> Can't this discussion be moved to talk.abortion?
> 
> -- 
> Bill Coleman

  
Ok...I'll quit talking about this and do my part to let this 
wander off to another group (notice I didn't say that word!!).
 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: orson@bluemoon.rn.com (Craig Smith)
Subject: Re: e-mail addr (memory trick)
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 22:28:26 EDT

> How to remember Enos Slobodnik?  Because its so much like
> Joe Slobotnik.  Anyone remember who he was?
> 
> 

CHARLIE BROWN'S FAVORITE BASEBALL PLAYER!!!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Craig E. Smith      "Life is a fulltime occupation" -- Gene Kallman ::
:: Columbus, Ohio                                                      ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush and the politics of envy
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:32:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: CERIS.1992Apr7.173202.26604
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <1992Apr3.014817.10456@umbc3.umbc.edu>, by alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain):
> In article <1992Apr3.001222.25380@nynexst.com> em@nynexst.com (Edward Man) writes:
> 
>>You missed the point completely. The point is that Congresspeople
>>use their positions to get rich; and ordinary citizens have to work
>>or take risk and hope to get rich. The rich have to invest; high
>>risk, high return, if there is any return at all. What do those
>>bums in Congress do? They only show up, have dinner, say hello,
>>and get tens of thousands of dollars. What do they risk?
> 
> 	I wonder does this catagorization include the President,
> or does he have to work for a living?
>

Well, Kennedy was rich, I think LBJ was, I think Nixon was, dunno
about Ford, Carter was - went broke later?, Reagan was, at least,
well off and Bush was already a millionaire. 
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas More)
From: jagnow@al.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Jagnow)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Retroactive abortion (Re: No murder of babies)
Keywords: abortion, rights, capital punishment, law & order
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:55:33 GMT
Reply-To: jagnow@al.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Jagnow)

With all the fuss over abortion, I'm surprised that no one has suggested that  
we legalize retroactive abortion - give the parents the option until the child  
is 21 (or some other arbitrary age).  Give the kids a chance to prove  
themselves.  If they turn out rotten, let the parents retroactively abort them.  
Just think of what it could do to cut down on juvenile delinquency.  It could  
also encourage children to show more respect (fear) for their parents.  It  
could help cut down on drug use and on gang activities without putting an  
excessive burden on the courts.
The concept of reroactive abortion is thousands of years old.  It is currently  
practiced in some parts of the world (notably in the Islamic countries of the  
middle east).
I suppose that there could be some abuse of this concept: "I'm sorry kids, but  
the company want bankrupt and I'm out of a job.  We don't have enough money to  
feed you and to make the payments on the BMW.  If I can't find employment soon  
we'll have to retroactively abort you or sell you as organ donors." (apologies  
to Monty Python)
This concept might work - it will appeal to those who don't want to 'kill  
pre-born children' and will appeal to those who support capital punishment.
(or is that the same group??)
Just a thought - Rush would love it.......
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: aiesec@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (AIESEC - Ohio State)
Subject: POLL Bush vs Clinton
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 03:48:26 GMT

Remeber to vote.  Send in your reply.  Who would you vote for in the election.

                           Bush vs. Clinton

No third party candidates please.
It's day 5/6 at midnight and so far I have 29 responses.  I know we have more 
viewers than that.  Send in your opinion now.  Thanks.

Ryan C. Scharfy
Buckeystate Dittohead
From: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (George Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: About George Martin and his reviews/critiques of Rush
Date: 17 Apr 92 20:00:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: zia.1992Apr17.200036.18924
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM

In article <1992Apr17.171629.22733@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Bryan Schroeder writes:
>(Regarding George Martin's review of Wed, Apr 15 show summary)
>
>Is this guy a blast, or what?!
>
>It's hard to really get peeved at what he says, since he is so, well, bonkers!
>His statements are laughable! Almost as good as Rush, but unintentially.
>
>I must ask myself, is he really serious?

Hey I had fun, glad you did also.  My NASCAR comment was not demeaning
to Rush.  I really do watch it  Go Bill Elliot, hsssssss Dale Earnhart.

Regards
  George
>watch the NFL on Sunday. George responds, "Well, I like NASCAR." I think George
>meant it as demeaning towards Rush. IT MAKES NO SENSE! Don't get mad folks,
>laugh! It's so much more fun!
>
>Bye, Y'all!


-- 
George Martin
Systems Analyst                     NRAO/VLA                  Socorro NM
Internet: gmartin@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
"Skating away on the thin ice of the new day."  (Ian Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: aiesec@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (AIESEC - Ohio State)
Subject: Re: POLL Bush vs. Clinton
Followup-To: Re: POLL Bush vs. Clinton
Summary: Keep them coming
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:17:46 GMT

Hi Folks.  Day three of the poll and I am getting worried.  Only 16 responses? 
You cannot tell me I am posting these to a close circle of computer losers?  
I know we can do better than this. Once again.

Who would you vote for in the Presidential Election.

                    Bush vs. Clinton

Cast your vote now!  Results next Sunday.

Ryan C. Scharfy
Buckeystate dittohead fast becoming dissapointed
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: AIESEC - Ohio State <aiesecrs@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: POLL: Bush versus Clinton
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:06:33 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.174410.22291@nynexst.com> you write:
>In article <1992Apr6.003234.16418@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> aiesec@magnus.acs
.ohio-state.edu (AIESEC - Ohio State) writes:
>>Hi gang.  In order to get an idea of what this group of users is like, I'm
>>conducting a poll.  Who would win the election for President if it were held
as
>>of this date.
>>
>>                       George Bush vs. Bill Clinton
>>
>>I am using the two most likely canditdates.  I have omitted H. Ross Perot for

>>the simple fact that he is still not legally registered to vote in all fifty
>>states, and he would naturally pull voters from all idiological views.  So ju
st
>>answer Bush or Clinton.  Results will be posted next Sunday night, in one wee
k.
>>Thank you.
>>
>>Ryan C. Scharfy
>>Buckeystate dittohead
>
>First of all, this newsgroup isn't an appropriate place for this
>poll. People in this group are too biased in this issue (I think).
>Secondly, I think if Perot gets into the race, Bush will get the
>most electoral votes, but Clinton will be the next President, thank
>you Misrepresentative for making another BIG MISTAKE.
>
>Ed

I am just taking a friendly poll.  Your response just shows that it doesn't 
take any specific political idiology to be an ass.

R. Scharfy
Buckeyestate dittohead
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: em@nynexst.com (Edward Man)
Subject: Re: Voting in the City That Leaks
Organization: Nynex Science and Technology
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 17:34:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr16.232244.27630@midway.uchicago.edu> clmn@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Quick, easy, efficient.  The American Way!
>
>-- 
>Bill Coleman

Sorry, Bill, "Quick, easy, efficient" is not the American way. 8-)
Slow, difficult, and inefficient is the American way. Just stop by
any government office. DMV is a good start.

---
Ed
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski)
Subject: Re: Rush on Wisconsin Politics
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 20:16:24 GMT

While reading article <1992Apr16.123546.21777@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, I noticed that
suo@cae.wisc.edu (Franklin Suo) said the following:
 >On the other hand, I was disappointed to hear Tommy getting praised, because
 >IMO, he's the biggest disgrace to the state since Sen. McCarthy. Thomoson has
 >instituted a number of welfare 'reform' proposals, all of which pander to the
 >stereotype that welfare recipients are a bunch of lazy, although
 >proliferative, parasites on society. 

I'm the other way on this.  I used to live in Wisconsin and was born and raised
there, not to mention the fact that I had the opportunity to elect Mr. Thompson.
I called his office yesterday to support him and basically told them to tell him
to keep up the good work.

 >Learnfare, the proposal that links welfare payments to a child's school
 >attendance, is one example. While it sounds good in theory, it overlooks the
 >mentality of the people it is supposedly aimed at. If a parent truly cares
 >about the well-being of their child, they will ensure that that child is in
 >school anyway. Chances are, that such a parent will use every means at their
 >disposal to try and find a job in order to better provide for their child. The
 >parents who tend to be chronic welfare recepients will probably tend not to
 >care much about their children anyway, so the receipt of a few dollars a month
 >more or less isn't likely to make much difference.

So if it doesn't make much of a difference, why not TRY to get that child in
school where they belong, rather than create someone who will grow up to be a
further drain on the welfare system?

 >Another proposal is a two-tiered welfare system, where people who move to WI
 >from another state, (mainly Illinois) will receive a lower welfare payment
 >than native Wisconsinites for a period of time (6 months, I think.) Besides
 >the fact that such a law is clearly unconstitutional under the Equal
 >Protection Clause, it will solve nothing. It is a blatant attempt to pander to
 >the paranoia that droves of welfare mothers are moving here from Chicago, just
 >so they can collect more welfare money.

And you don't think they ARE?  "Droves of welfare mothers" is a bit strong, but
the status of Wisconsin as a "welfare magnet" is pretty well known, even by
folks out here in Colorado.

Personally, I think the loss of additional benefits for additional children is
a GREAT idea.  Thompson, and those who are fans of his program maintain one 
thing:  If my wife and I have a child, our employers aren't going to give us
raises just because we have another mouth to feed.
-- 
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "It's Night 9 with D2 Dave!"
From: steinar@faust.solan.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: H. Ross Perot for President
Date: 12 Apr 92 12:23:25 GMT
	<1992Apr6.174727.22494@nynexst.com>
	<1992Apr8.194347.18179@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<1992Apr9.165137.13022@unlv.edu>
Organization: Flodnak, Inc., Trondheim, Norway

Edward Crawford writes:
>Umm... The US never was and hopefully never will be a democracy... We
>are a republic, which always was a representative form of government.

Can someone please tell me when this definition became so popular?
I have checked three dictionaries, all of which define "republic" as
something along the lines of "a country in which the head of state is
not a monarch".  And yet i have heard the definition of "republic =
representative/indirect democracy" more and more often lately...

The point is that Norway, for example, is a representative democracy,
but i would feel foolish calling it a republic because the head of
state is King Harald V....  Whereas the US, where the President does
double duty as head of state and head of government, is both a republic
and a representative democracy, according to the definitions given in
those dictionaries i've checked, and in my old books from Poli Sci 
(EEEK!) classes....

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: suo@cae.wisc.edu (Franklin Suo)
Subject: EIP Poll 3 Results
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:57:22 CDT
Originator: suo@sun-25.cae.wisc.edu



Here are the results of Excellence in Posting Poll #3. The question was:

Who do you plan to vote for in the presidential elections?

RESULTS:

George Bush: 8
H. Ross Perot: 3
Andre Marrou: 2
Bill Clinton : 2
Jerry Brown : 2
Pat Buchanan : 2
Bernard Sanders : 1

Once again, I at EIP Headquarters was very pleased with the level of response,
and thank all those who took time to write to me.

It should be noted that it is unlikely that all of the above candidates will
actually be on the November ballot, and the results reflect the fact that
several responses were of the form: "I'll vote for X if he runs/gets the
nomination, otherwise I'll vote for Y." Rather than attempting to predict
which set of circumstances will prevail in November, the EIP Statistical
Evaluation Dept. simply reported all of the candidates that were listed.


EDITORIAL:

I am encouraged by the fact that the non-Bush voted outnumbered the Bush votes
by a margin of 4 to 3. The only problem is: who really LIKES the non-Bush
candidates? Oh well...Someday maybe I'll run for president (since Rush won't
take the job), and I know I can count on at least 20 votes from all the avid
EIP fans on UseNet! :-)



"America the Beautiful, land of the free,
Don't change the words to Land of Hypocricy"		Frank Suo
--Anthrax--						suo@cae.wisc.edu
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Ronald Reagan and the other semi-tough
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:26:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: CERIS.1992Apr8.212635.7919
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University

From article <1992Mar26.230536.7511@umbc3.umbc.edu>, by alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain):
> In article <mykes.1339@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> 
>>In 1981, when Reagan became President, the hostages were immediately freed.
>>I see this as not the result of some prearranged agreement, but more of a
>>tribute to Reagan's image and also a way for Iran to thumb its nose one last
>>time at Carter.  I genuinely believe that Iran became quite afraid of what
>>Reagan might do in retribution to Iran if they continued to hold the hostages.
>>That and the fact that spare parts are critical to an army that is waging
>>a deadly war (with Iraq) led to the release of the hostages.
> 
> 	This is the second time that someone has publicly stated that
> the Iranians were so afraid of Reagan that they felt inclined to
> release the hostages immediately after his inauguration. This
> statement deserves a place right next to "The war on drugs is a
> marvelous success" as a first rate pipe dream of the right.
> 
> 	Think about it: The Iranians were willing to kill off half of
> their male population in order to invade Iraq, but they were afraid of
> the US. I suppose that after our stunning victory in Vietnam, we must
> have made a fearful opponent.
>

Indeed.  Iran did not invade Iraq, Iraq invaded Iran.  They were
not on good terms with the Soviets like the Vietcong were.   
 
> 	Besides. The Iranians were quietly taking delivery of new
> weapons in the spring of 1980, using Israel as an intermediary agent.
> this implies to me that they either viewed Reagan as a friend or they
> changed their minds real fast after he took office. After all, Reagan
> had been making Nuke Iran noises for the previous year. If they were
> so terrified of us that they wanted to give the hostages up, why were
> they so willing to do trust us in a business relationship
> *immediately* after he took office?  If they were taking delivery in
> April, then negotiations must have been one of the first things that
> Reagan did as president.
> 
> 	Funny how that worked, isn't it?
>

Yep.  It could be Ronnie convinced them that he _was_ willing to
use force.  Or, if you prefer, that he was crazy enough to ;-{).
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas More)