HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Stuff about Clinton
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:11:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.050240.29059@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:

   Some interesting things about Clinton:
   I wanted to see whatit was like to vote for Clinton, so I went into the
   bathroom and flushed the toliet.

   I had this dream that he was President, they played the Internationale at his
   inaguration.

   I was walking down the street and saw a house decorated for Halloween and I
   wondered why they had a likeness of Hillary Clinton riding a broom.

   Bill Clinton wears a toupee--it's to hide the 3 sixes on his head.

   Perhaps their daughter, if she was smart, would divorce herself from them!!!

And there you have it! More compelling logic from the New Right Nursery. I
know all the Dittoherd is glad to have you along, Simon.

(So what happened to San Antonio, anyway?)

L.
"Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
 I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
 Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\ 
 (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
Show me a man who rides side saddle, and I'll show you a gay ranchero.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Stuff about Clinton
Summary: Simon's simple, all right. 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:05:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.212824.18664@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>In article <Bw2A3v.G0E@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct13.050240.29059@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>
>>>Some interesting things about Clinton:
>>
>>How about putting a more truthful label on it:  your little fantasies about
>>Clinton?
>>
>>>I wanted to see whatit was like to vote for Clinton, so I went into the
>>>bathroom and flushed the toliet.
>>
>>Sounds like you've never been in a voting booth before -- no big surprise...
>>
>>>I had this dream that he was President, they played the Internationale at his
>>>inaguration.
>>
>>I'm sure you'll include that in your "book" you allege you're writing...
>>
>>>I was walking down the street and saw a house decorated for Halloween and I
>>>wondered why they had a likeness of Hillary Clinton riding a broom.
>>
>>Why go to that trouble, when Marilyn Quayle fits the bill so much better?
>>
>>>Bill Clinton wears a toupee--it's to hide the 3 sixes on his head.
>>
>>Those aren't sixes, dimwit -- they're nines.  Bill is a SubGenius.  :-)
>>
>>>Perhaps their daughter, if she was smart, would divorce herself from them!!!
>>
>>A pity your parents didn't think of that long ago...
>>
>>
>>--PLH (and I'm only 320 kilometers from this loony-tune?  Gack.)

>No, Billis just subhuman.

Do you have some proof of that, or is this just another of your opinions
pulled out of a hat?

>Now, I would guess that you're undecided about who to vote for?? :)

I know who I'm going to vote for -- and I'll let you know after November
3rd.  (My candidate isn't likely to win.  There's a clue for you.)

>BTW, I've voted before, in fact I voted for Bush in 1988.     You seem
>REALLY paranoid about this sci-fi story I'm planning.

I'm not paranoid about it at all.  You're starting to act paranoid about
your thinking that I am, though.  You know, that doesn't surprise me at all,
for some reason...

--PLH (the more things change...)

-- 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6477 alt.rush-limbaugh:6862
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:44:37 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Oct8.133246.4417@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.225046.13429@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.212940.16972@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>>
>>>I can only judge by the film you conviniently mention for me.  Truth or dare
>>>was decadence  on parade for me.
>>
>>I didn't find the movie decadent, because I didn't go see it.
>
>I didnt go see it either.  It came on HBO and I was curious enough to want to
>know what all the fuss is about.

Then if you are offended, you have no one to blame but yourself.  (Unless
someone tied you to a chair and forced you to watch it.  In which case,
I think follow ups should go to alt.sex.bondage.)

In fact, you rather remind me of the old joke about the prude who complained
and complained about the dirty movie, and when asked, "Why didn't you leave?"
responded, "I wanted to see how it came out!".

Me, although I personally don't find anything wrong with video depictions of
sex and used to go to dirty movies when I was a graduate student, was
probably reading a book the night that came on.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:34:00 GMT


In a previous article, jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner) says:

>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?

Yep, you ARE an asshole, aren't you...

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

Funny, I believe almost _NOTHING_ on TV.

You, of course, who believes without exception everything Rush vomits up,
would make that assumption.

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

Er...God who?

Did you miss the .sig?

Just one more example that you rely strictly on others opinions to shape
your own.

Don't be a sheep.  Think for yourself.

>
>Hey I listen to Rush for many reasons. I was actually thinking for myself
>even BEFORE I started listaning to Rush.

Indeed?  Then why did you stop after you began listening?

> What we have here is a lonely boy
>who wants to live off the governemnt largess for the rest of his life, IMHO.
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pardon me?

You're the one who has nothing to do from noon to 3 that allows you to listen 
to Limbaugh's swill.  Most normal people can't do that, they work during those
hours.

Must be nice to have that monthly welfare check...

>
>And another thing: Rush was around when Carter was President! And his ratings
>were the highest in his old market. 
>
>
So what?  The garbage Limbaugh pumps out appeals to the lunatic fringe, and
the lunatic fringe was around, even then...

You're proof of that...
-- 
*...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.***************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Subject: Two down... one to go!
Organization: California State University Sacramento
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:45:10 GMT


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. 
 

=============================================================================
! "He's very smart and he does his homework. And you ignore him at your
peril." - Ted Koppel, on Rush Limbaugh. 

! "I'm still trying to sort out what I'm permitted to laugh at and
what is not politically acceptable for me to laugh at" - Feminist
Lawyer Gloria Allred, on Rush Limbaugh. 
 
				- Vanity Fair, May 1992 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins)
Subject: Re: Quayle Smashes Gore...
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:06:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.222245.9666@ms.uky.edu> miles@ms.uky.edu (Stephen D. Grant) writes:
>tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>
>>Well, like I thought would happen, Quayle demoloshid Gore in the debate.  It
>>looks like Quayle could be the only thing that might possibly save Bush.
>
>>Ted K.
>
>BWAHAHAHAHAHAA
>
>We must have watched two different debates.
>
Nah same debate. The Vice President demolished Gore.  There was also some
assistence from Admiral Stockdale.  Did he vote for the Carribean Basin
inititiative, he says no, the record says yes.  Sounds like a lie to me.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Stuff about Clinton
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:23:58 GMT

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???
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Family leave farce (was a most pressing COncern)
From: rdale@cstp.umkc.edu
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:54:44 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UM - Kansas City, Computer Science

> ready to line up for a job, why provide actual benefits when you don't have
> to?) This is why the family leave bill is needed. Get the point?

	It was purely a red herring to embarass Bush.  The majority of
people work for companies with 50 or fewer employees (53 to 70%, 
depending on who is talking).  The family leave bill would affect only
those companies with more than 50 employees.  That means the bill would
cover 30 to 47% of workers.  At least half those companies already have
family leave policies.  *All* of the large companies I have worked for
(two colleges, three private businesses) have those policies.

	The so-called family leave bill would not have covered the
majority of workers who *need* it, just those in the minority who
happen to work for large corporations.

	It was fraud legislation from the beginning.  If we want
family leave and national health care, then we ought to get it.  But we
shouldn't dance around with frivolous legislation which is about as
useless as mammary glands on a boar hog. . .

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Religious rights and responsibilities
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:03:16 GMT

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 - so was the settlement  
>of the colonies.

    I suppose that Christian principles formed the basis of of colonization 
in North America in much the same way as it formed the basis for the British 
conquest and dominion of India, Africa, and New Zealand. It was unthinkable 
to the British that the Sikhs, Maoris, Zulus, Ashantis, Boers, Americans, 
etc would rather be ruled by their own leaders than British ones. I'd say 
that there's plenty of room for discussion over whether the British were 
justified in taking that position regardless of how altruistic their motives 
may have been.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
From: rdale@cstp.umkc.edu
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:04:17 GMT
Organization: UM - Kansas City, Computer Science

>> take.  Bill Clinton has a plan to create millions of new jobs,
>> provide every American with affordable health care, and improve our
>> schools.  George Bush can only offer more of the same.
> 
> Bush has the same kind of plans, but they've been buried in Congress.
> The present congress can only offer more of the same, IMHO.

	And won't it just be *wonderful* to see that national health
care program run with all the loving tenderness of the Veterans'
Hospitals, Medicare, welfare, and drivers' license bureaus?

	Government can't create jobs through taxation and spending.  They've
been taxing and spending for years, and there are no jobs, as Slick Willie
points out.

	If Bush, Clinton, and Perot have these grand plans, they should
present them now, before the election.  After all, aren't jobs for
30 million people worth more than a shot at the Presidency?  Clinton
may be right about the 30,000,000 jobs, but I'll wager that he COSTS
that many jobs rather than create that many.

	Of course he could be like previous Democrat administrations
and get us into a protracted war. . .
From: lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED-BAITING
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:49:28 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu

>
>    I would say that there's a lot of value in a job. I suppose I should 
>try some sort of Rush Limbaugh joke here and note that of the many Americans 
>who worked at jobs in 1860, all of them are now dead. Basically it's a 

	At the turn of the centry, 95% of Americans worked for themselves.

>silly, irrelevant statistic, just about like yours. Just out of curiosity, 
>how large is the statistical sample of people who have earned college 
>degrees and then worked for a single company for 40 years? What relevance 

	The sample is of all Americans who got a masters degree by the age
of 25 and worked till 63.


Bryon



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The American education system only teaches you to go into debt,
		fortunately, I know how to get out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Constitutional Questions, and liberalisms....
Summary: Read the papers once in a while... 
Organization: Patrick, Dale Ann, and the rest of the household 
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:51:57 GMT

In article <2660@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM> tom@tredysvr.Tredydev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) writes:
>In article <Bw2MsG.J4F@rice.edu> patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L. Humphrey) writes:
>>>
>>>If the gun grabbers and liberal do-gooders get their way, the only
>>>protection a woman will be allowed to carry is a condom.
>>
>>...and she won't even be allowed that, if the wacked out religious right
>>gets their way.  Right?
>
>Nah .. she'll still be able to get them at the local government indoctrination
>center, aka the public schools.

Talk about optimism -- you think the wackos are going to allow public
schooling after they grab the reins?  If they do at all, they'll make sure
every inmate, er, student gets their mandated share of approved religious
indoctrination....and the breed of fundies we've grown in this country would
*much* rather punish people for having sex than actually doing something
sensible about it, like (gasp!) providing contraceptives...

>Besides, I'm all for pagans and liberals using condoms ... and feminazis
>don't need them.  They have their personalities.

Fortunately for the rest of us, biology isn't subject to your whims.

--PLH (say hello to Wavy Davy for me, eh?)

--
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Date: 11 Oct 92 00:50:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bradley University

In <5946@news.duke.edu> lanier@acpub.duke.edu (Dustin Lanier) writes:

>In article <1992Sep27.153806.22425@afterlife.ncsc.mil> acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:
>>Just a note to all of the people that gloated that Limbaugh's
>>book was doing so much better than Clinton - Gore's _Putting 
>>People First_. 
>>
>>The Washington Post Book World for September 27 reports that
>>Limbaugh's book is Number One in Hardback non-fiction, Clinton-Gore's
>>book is Number One in Paperback Non-Fiction. 

>Well its clearly misclassified ... the clinton gore book should
>be in Paperback Fiction!

>sorry, I couldn't resist.

Unfortunately.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Stuff about Clinton
Summary: Here come the men in the white coats...
Organization: Patrick, Dale Ann, Muddy Waters, and Boudreaux (gettin' crowded)
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:14:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.050240.29059@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Some interesting things about Clinton:

How about putting a more truthful label on it:  your little fantasies about
Clinton?  

>I wanted to see whatit was like to vote for Clinton, so I went into the
>bathroom and flushed the toliet.

Sounds like you've never been in a voting booth before -- no big surprise...

>I had this dream that he was President, they played the Internationale at his
>inaguration.

I'm sure you'll include that in your "book" you allege you're writing...

>I was walking down the street and saw a house decorated for Halloween and I
>wondered why they had a likeness of Hillary Clinton riding a broom.

Why go to that trouble, when Marilyn Quayle fits the bill so much better?

>Bill Clinton wears a toupee--it's to hide the 3 sixes on his head.

Those aren't sixes, dimwit -- they're nines.  Bill is a SubGenius.  :-)

>Perhaps their daughter, if she was smart, would divorce herself from them!!!

A pity your parents didn't think of that long ago...


--PLH (and I'm only 320 kilometers from this loony-tune?  Gack.)

-- 
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6490 alt.rush-limbaugh:6870
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:31:47 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Oct6.164129.18587@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.001338.27975@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ In article <1992Oct5.212140.20360@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
@ 
@ >Madonna's new $4 million estate in Coral Gables took a "big
@ >beating, though." Windows were broken and the landscape was
@ >damaged. Rush says that this is no big deal for Madonna - "it's
@ >not the first time that some guy blew into town for a night,
@ >trashed her, and then left."

@ 	This was the Rush Limbaugh quote I was talking about.

@ 	It seems that he _relished_ the thought of her being sexually
@ humiliated, which I find rather sick. Yes, sick. I think sex should be
@ for enjoyment, not for humiliation, whatever Rush Limbaugh may think.

>Humiliation is in the eye of the beholder.  I think that she sexually 
>humiliates herself by publicly doing the things that she does in 
>videos, movies, etc.  If you publicly display a certain type of 
>behavior, don't be surprised when someone comes to take advantage of 
>that behavior.

	I have loads of interviews of her, and I don't think that she
sounds like she is sexually humiliating herself.

>In other words, if you symbolically masturbate on stage in front of 
>thousands of people, don't be surprised if someone thinks that you 
>are sexually loose.

	How is masturbation supposed to indicate a willingness to have
sex with anyone who comes along? And why is that supposed to be so
horrible, anyway? And let us not forget that masturbation is solo sex.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6448 alt.rush-limbaugh:6833
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Date: 6 Oct 92 16:43:44 GMT
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <1992Oct6.011858.13643@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>
>	[Rush denegrades Madonna, deleted]
>
>This shouldn't be surprising to anyone, after all, Madonna makes more money
>then Rush, is better looking then Rush, can sell more books, records, videos
                                                       ^^^^^

Alex!  Please read your NYT Best Seller list.


>then Rush, and isn't even as old as he is. By his own standards, she's more
>sucessful then he is, and I'm sure it pisses him off.
>
>-- 
>                               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

Ted

-- 
"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."

krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu