HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush words!
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:46:58 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

brpleshek@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
>Is anyone compiling a list of Rush's Lexicon?

Well, if you can find a copy of the book, there is a Limbaugh Lexicon
there in the back. If you can't find one, the B. Dalton's here in Durham
has a lot of copies still. If you want to fly down to Durham ... :)
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6251 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4758
From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: HERE'S SLICK'S TAX LIST
Reply-To: Hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: Deutsches Elektronen Synchrotron, Experiment ZEUS bei HERA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 13:05:01 GMT

|>46. Act 383 increased the number of days of dog racing for the city general
|>|>fund    and the mental retardation fund.

Now just who can claim that that is a tax?

I suppose Bush would try to count the opening of a gift shop in the city hall as
300 or so fee increases.

Lying is not saying things that you know are untrue. Lying is trying to convince
people of things you know are untrue. On this basis Bush is a liar.

--

Phill Hallam-Baker
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6258 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4763
From: lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Date: 30 Sep 1992 20:45:43 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: palomar.aero.org
Keywords: masturbation

In article <1992Sep29.183808.18034@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>  ...the book is...  called "The Making of A Senator".
>  Richard Fenno is a PoliSci prof at the University of
>  Rochester It ... mentions that his fellow senators
>  respect his abilities as a senator.

	This is quite true.  It was Ted Kennedy who said
	in 1988 that he liked Dan Quayle...that he isn't
	as dumb as he seems!!

-- 
Larry Miller		The Aerospace Corporation
lmiller@aero.org	PO Box 92957		
310-336-5597		LA, CA 90009-2957
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 4 Oct 92 15:11:58 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <25878@oasys.dt.navy.mil> bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:
>In talk.abortion, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>That statement has no bearing--I'm trying to be serious about this.
>>The unborn child is clearly aware of its surroundings.
>
>Have you been speaking to fetuses lately? Suzanne would like to talk
>to you. :)

This thread has a disturbing and yet unmentioned assumption that I would
like to bring to our attention.  We believe that certain rights are 
inalienable and among these is the right to life.  This is a natural right
and as such transends those rights we have by rule of law.  Now, if one
places a criterion such as the relative awareness or, more frightening,
the intelligence of the being as necessary for right to life protection
then I believe you have not only diminished the natural right to life
but that you have set a very dangerous precedent.

If, however, one wishes to use this as a criterion then what is to prevent
the government (which is determining this criterion) from assigning 
the right to life as a function of something else such as the expected
future intelligence of the child?  This sounds far fetched but so did 
space travel until recently ... technology is pushing us into some
dangerous arenas.

Personally, my compassion and respect for another human is not mitigated
by the relative intelligence nor the awareness of that person.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: norris@athena.mit.edu (Richard A Chonak)
Subject: Murphy Brown
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 01:04:14 GMT

Can somebody who watches the show settle whether Murphy's pregnancy was
planned?  I thought the issue was that she *set out* to bear a child
without being married.  

(If it is true, it was not very considerate of the child's emotional 
needs.)

-_RC
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6206 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6075
From: leescogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Lee)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Taxing the Rich (was Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate)
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:28:58 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

I can't help but wonder why no one has brought up the idea of a flat tax rate
again during this election.  If we really want an equitable solution to the
problem of the rich not paying their fair share, then this would be the 
answer.

I would complain much less if everyone were charge a flat 5-10% of their gross
income with no deductions and no adjustments to that income.  It would also
seem reasonable that this would increase the amount of income to the U.S.  I
don't, unfortunately, have any figures on how much this would increase the
income and would be interested in some economics wizards putting the pencil
to this.

Just my humble "two cents" worth.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6400 alt.activism.d:3484 alt.politics.elections:14976 alt.politics.bush:7537 alt.politics.clinton:8222 talk.politics.misc:49197 talk.abortion:40116
From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Date: 2 Oct 1992 22:18:58 GMT
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Reply-To: cj@sgi.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: eno.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Oct2.042310.4735@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu writes:
|Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is
|aware.  Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant
|woman feel the child moving about??  Does that not constitute
|awareness??

Uh.  Yes.  On the part of the pregnant woman.
Hint: amoebas move about too.

Followups to talk.abortion exclusively, please!

---
cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com      C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6528 alt.activism.d:3539 alt.politics.elections:15141 alt.politics.bush:7714 alt.politics.clinton:8453 talk.politics.misc:49506 talk.abortion:40545
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 5 Oct 1992 16:04:49 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Dave Schabel) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >What is absurd is that there is any communication at all.  After all,
|> >the entire argument is based upon the disagreement over whether or not
|> >the fetus is person.  I haven't seen one argument that doesn't
|> >resort to this decision of faith (after all there is no way to prove
|> >either side is correct) as the "final argument."
|> >
|> 
|> You are absolutely right.  However, since we are and cannot be
|> sure if and when it is a person, shouldn't we err on the side
|> of caution?  

What is this "we" stuff.  You can "err" on whatever side you like.  I
would only like the right to make the decisions based upon what I believe.
That is called "choice."  Forcing everyone to choose one way because some
believe in it is called tyranny.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 20:52:42 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <20821@plains.NoDak.edu> jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.162034.21150@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>)In article <20776@plains.NoDak.edu> jorgense@plains.NoDak.edu (Lee A. Jorgensen) writes:
>)>AND, no where in nature is abortion practiced.  (some eat their
>)>young), BUT there is NO abortion.
>)
>)Sorry, Lee, but this is not true.
>)
>)Example: When a new stallion takes over a herd, it will often kick the
>)mares impregnated by the previous stallion until they abort.
>)
>)Zebras are another type of animal that will abort their young, under 
>)similar circumstances.
>
>Well, does the Zebra have a choice?  I mean, the women of this country of
>don't go around and have doctors hit them until they abort 'naturally'
>
>NATURALLY, animals don't abort their young.  Miscarriages are another thing,
>but we're talking about ABORTION.  Killing of INNOCENT CHILDREN!!!

Huh?  You said no where in nature is abortion practiced.  I disputed this.
What does the zebra's choice have to do with it?  

What do you mean, "NATURALLY, animals don't abort their young"?  I just
provided an example, FROM NATURE, where animals do abort their young.

Are you disputing this, or are you now changing your statement?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "I'll do the thinnin' around here!"
                   ---Quick Draw McGraw
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 2 Oct 1992 04:23:10 GMT

Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??

Simon

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5888 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5934 talk.politics.misc:47969 alt.flame:13051
From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Date: 25 Sep 92 16:11:07 GMT
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson in North America.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the user and
              not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <mykes.0e0z@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep21.144353.4123@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@euterpe.uucp (Gene W. Smith) writes:
>> In article <mykes.0dwq@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike
>> Schwartz) writes:

>> >Get rid of the IRS altogether.  In case you missed it - the federal
>> >budget for FY 1992 was $1.5 Trillion and revenues were $1.14 Trillion.
>> >Of those revenues, $350 Billion were from income tax.  What does this
>> >mean?  If the govt. could cut spending by 1/3, there would be no need
>> >for income tax at all.  No need for donations, either.
>>
>> Urr...I realize that higher math functions such as addition and
>> multiplication can be difficult for Rush Limbaugh fans to deal with.
>> But you really ought to check your math here.
>>

>You are an idiot.

No, you are the idiot.

>Here's the math that even a Limbaugh fan can understand:

>Spending = $1.5Trillion, minus 1/3 makes $1Trillion.
>Revenues = $1.14 Trillion

>$1.14 Trillion - $1 Trillion = $140Billion SURPLUS.
>You ought to engage your brain.

Sorry, foolish, you forgot to subtract $ 350 Billion for the "unneeded" 
income tax, putting you $ 210 Billion in the red.

Maybe you should run for president.  Or congress.  Looks like you can do 
what they have been doing.


 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
From: sloy@novell.com (sam e. loy)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:30:39 GMT
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

>In article <1992Sep24.202741.19551@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (
Dale Cook) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep24.013758.27703@versyss.com> keithd@versyss.UUCP (Keith 
Doyle) writes:
>>>Regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, you end up having
>>>to defend an uncomfortable position.  
>>
>>I diasgree.  The person in the uncomfortable position is the woman who has
>>to make the decision.  It's relatively easy to sit back and flame away at
>>the net without having been in a position where one might have to consider
>>an abortion as an option.
>
>I don't believe that you've considered this angle, let me specify..
>
>The father is also (potentially) in an uncomfortable postion for the very
>reason that should the woman _choose_ to have the child then he is partially
>responsible for the care of the child.  You have claimed that men are totally
>removed from the process thus they have no right to decide the fate of the
>child.  Your point would be more valid if the father had absolutely no
>responsibility for the child after birth (or during pregnancy).
>
>Generally, your point sounds like women being able to "have their cake
>and eat it too".  That is, they want the right to abort the child without
>interference by the father while at the same time they want the option 
>to make the father responsible for bringing up the child if it is born.
>There is little justice in that philosophy.
>
>>Actually, the irony of the abortion issue is that here we have the case of
>>the "conservatives" (who espouse "individual rights" over "group rights")
>>attempting to protect a right [to life] of a particular group [the unborn],
>>while the "liberals" (who are purported to believe in "group rights" over
>>"individual rights") are tring to protect a right [to consider abortion as
>>an option] of the individual [the woman].

Its amazing how much can be said about abortion without once mentioning the 
person who is the most innocent, the most helpless, yet the most victimized.

Sam Loy
From: rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Slick Willy's Peace Movement
Keywords: significant words from a document used as an index to content
Date: 27 Sep 92 00:16:26 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA

In article <Bv66ys.DJG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> StarOwl@uiuc.edu writes:
>green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
>
>: Seems Boy Clinton was a little more than a draft dodger.
>
>Man with a conscience, maybe?
>
Gee, is that why he LIED to his draft board and ROTC unit?  A man with
such a "clear" conscience the country can do without.....

Try a few ethics courses to round out that education....   :-)


-- 
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   |
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5880 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5929 talk.politics.misc:47945 alt.flame:13042
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Date: 24 Sep 92 11:03:38 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
> In article <1992Sep21.144353.4123@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsmith@euterpe.
> > You don't either agree with me.  I said abolish taxes.  Any and every
> > form of revenue except for that which is voluntarily tendered.  Let a
> > thousand points of light bloom!
> 
> That makes you an anarchist.

You admit, then, that nobody would want to pay for the services government
offers if it wasn't compulsory to do so?


mathew
-- 
De-evolution!  Self-execution!  No solution!  I'm a potato, and I'm sooooo hip!
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jsb@jack.sns.com (Jim Best)
Subject: Re: The Irony of the Abortion Issue
Organization: Systems'n'Software
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 16:29:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.162451.21387@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>In article <sloy.1.717719439@novell.com> sloy@novell.com (sam e. loy) writes:
>>
>>Its amazing how much can be said about abortion without once mentioning the 
>>person who is the most innocent, the most helpless, yet the most victimized.
>
>The assumption here, of course, is that the developing "baby" is a person.
>That, my friend, is a matter of opinion.

OK Mister Opinion if the developing baby is not a person Just what is it????

>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>...Dale Cook    "I'll do the thinnin' around here!"
>                   ---Quick Draw McGraw
>The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6434 alt.fan.dan-quayle:4871
From: popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Keywords: masturbation
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 92 11:59:50 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy

lmiller@aero.org (Lawrence H. Miller) writes:

> In article <1992Sep29.183808.18034@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) 
> >  ...the book is...  called "The Making of A Senator".
> >  Richard Fenno is a PoliSci prof at the University of
> >  Rochester It ... mentions that his fellow senators
> >  respect his abilities as a senator.
> 
> 	This is quite true.  It was Ted Kennedy who said
> 	in 1988 that he liked Dan Quayle...that he isn't
> 	as dumb as he seems!!
> 
> -- 
> Larry Miller		The Aerospace Corporation
> lmiller@aero.org	PO Box 92957		
> 310-336-5597		LA, CA 90009-2957

On the other hand.....
  "Dan Quayle is 2 pounds lighter than a straw hat."
                           -Republican Senator Lowell Weiker

Pope Charles  Subgenius Pope Of Houston          Slack!

--
popec@unkaphaed.UUCP (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, (713) 943-2728 in Houston, Texas
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
From: norm@sdc.com (Norm Nithman)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Are Republicans Evil? (yes they are!)
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:14:48 GMT
Organization: Systems Development Corporation

In article <1992Sep9.200426.7293@anazi.com> best@anazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>Gag! Lance, you have really misrepresented Republicans by implying that 
>they don't believe in "Liberty and Justice for ALL".  It is more correct
>to describe of Republicans (than Democrats) that they believe in an
>_impartial_ society where the law is blind to the ethnicity/religion/etc
>of the _individual.  Take into account the reluctance by Republicans to
>endorse employment quotas based on race and contrast that to the Democrats.
>The Republicans believe that individuals have rights, not groups. 

They didn't seem to mind Jim Crow laws or exploiting race hatred.

>
>The Democrats, on the other hand, believe fully in group rights
>(Homosexual, Women, Blacks, and so on).  The Founders were unquestionably
>of the opinion that they were describing INDIVIDUAL rights.  The Democrats
>are trying to use "group rights" to achieve their goal to make us all 
>equal in the end (yuck).  In this regard they are out of step with the
>thinking of the Founders.  Group rights make some people more equal than
>others, it makes one think that because one is a woman that their rights
>are more important than someone else who is NOT a member of that group.
>

What the hell are you talking about?

Norm
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Ted.Schafer@bbs.rn.com (Ted Schafer)
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 21:53:26 EST
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Subject: what did Rush do in the 60's and 70's??????
Distribution: world
Reply-To: Ted.Schafer@bbs.rn.com (Ted Schafer)
X-Posting-Software: UniBoard 1.10a S/N 145921

hello everyone
      A few nights back I e-mailed Rush.put the question to motor
mouth.What service did he join to do is duty to God and country.
Well friends turns out he must not have been so big on the idea back
then.Rush said he had not avoided the draft,and he was not running
for president.You all must understand I'am about the same age as rush,
and I guess he like so many of my age have some how forgotten that time
.Well let me tell you that war did not last 6 months, it lasted 10
years.If you were a male of draft age and you wern't in school or some
job that got you out of it you when.That is if you were healthy.Also
at that time you couldn't vote till 21 ,which made it real nice that
you could die for your country but you couldn't vote.
    my real point after all that b.s. is that if was as brave as he
seem to think other should be why didn't join back then.I guess like
so many people of that age he justed didn't want to spend two of the 
most productive years of life in the service.And let me tell you next
to prison (i guess)the service is not a nice place to spend your time.
Also most people have to admit your parents have a lot of control over
your life at that time (18-21) and most of us didn't think we would
see 30.
                                 
                            peace,love and a little bit of action
                             Ted Schafer u.s.m.c (72 - 76)
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:5883 alt.politics.bush:6720 alt.politics.clinton:7260 alt.politics.elections:14295 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5930 talk.politics.misc:47950