HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:43:36 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <1992Oct12.104719.13053@anomaly.sbs.risc.net>, kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

|> >	The other major event is the rise of Limbaugh, Buchannan and
|> >their ilk within the party.
|> 
|> "Ilk"? I wasn't aware that Limbaugh had a place 'within the party' to
|> rise to.

	Well, Rush was a convention speaker, so he's being recognised by
the GOP powers that be.

|> What makes you think that people will stop listening to Rush simply
|> because Bush is no longer President?

	I don't think that at all. What I am suggesting is that Rush's
popularity is, to some degree, pacing the far right shift of the GOP, and
that far right shift is costing the them votes. I don't think that Rush
is directly responsible, but I think that the same forces that put him
on the convention platform are the forces hurting the party this year.

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Cold Fusion!
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:36:09 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

In article <7106@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> ccohen+@pitt.edu (Caleb N Cohen) writes:

   Friends,
     Does anybody know what (if anything) Rush has said about the Pons/
   Fleishman team from Univ. Utah and Cold Fusion.  I have heard - through
   the grapevine which included a bunch of liberals that he has
   stated that Cold Fusion actually exists, but that the government is
   supressing it.  Without telling you how utterly ridiculous this
   is, I would like to know if anyone else has heard of this...

   Thanks,
   Caleb

Try a newsgroup called sci.physics.fusion for real information about cold
fusion. (So far all I have been able to glean out of posts to that group is
the details for constructing a hydrogen device to fit in a briefcase.) 

I started to say that I guessed Rush hadn't said much about cold fusion
science conspiracies, since he doesn't know anything about the subject. 
But then I realized that Rush doesn't know anything about most of what 
he spouts off about, and it has never stopped him yet.

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..
Oh! There's the deuterium.. Now where did that plutonium get off to?
Organization: Design, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 09:55:27 -0400 
From: Karin Brennan <kb4c+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: rush

Re this message:
>From: young7905@iscsvax.uni.edu
>Subject: rush
>Date: 13 Oct 92 23:38:14 -0500
 
>To all Rush's Supporters wherever you are:
 
 
              > RUSH MUST DIE!!!!!!!!!
 
                  >  Bye!

Mr. or Ms. young-
You are a true visionary. 
You have moved me.  Moved me to send E-mail to all of my friends and
spread The Word.
You are what makes our country what it is today.  
Every thought about starting a revolution?
How about joining the KKK or Nazi Youth?
I have an idea!  Why don't you start your OWN B-board, and post ALL of
your  death, murder, (or whatever you were implying) fantasies there!  
I just know we'll all read it everyday.
Really! 
(NO! I am not serious.  Your post is juvenile as well as inappropriate. 
If you have something of substance to say-positive  or negative-post it
and we'll be happy to read it, and get to know you, and your ideas a
little better.  Until then- I, for one, would appreciate it if you took
it somewhere else.)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.humor
From: jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner)
Subject: More Clinton Humor
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 20:13:27 GMT

I heard Al Gore hired a computer science major to help him with his sexual
problems.

The solution was an AL GORE ithm (algorithm)

If Slick Willie gets elected, I'll be pretty upset.

If it goes to the House, I'm running for the hills!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley)
Subject: Re: Religious rights and responsibilities
Organization: Computer Technology Group, TAEX
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 15:13:55 GMT

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. The 
Pharisees used the Mosaic law to crucify Jesus. The Mormon leadership has 
used their own version of religion to justify polygamy. Don't forget about 
Islamic jihad (sp?).

Be very careful that you do not attribute to God the work of the devil.

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
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:53:27 GMT
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
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:

> There is another possibility as to why the net is so overwhelmingly liberal.
> 
> Before posting a new article, rnews warns you that this may cost a lot of
> money to do and asks if you REALLY want to do this?
> 
> Conservatives, who care about not wasting money, will stop right there if
> they do not feel that it is important enough to continue, which I do.
> 
> Liberal, who are used to spending other people's money and teaching others
> to do so do not find this a barrier.

And apparently you do not either.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin)
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Keywords: Rush Liberal Media Anita Hill Clarence Thomas
Organization: Michigan State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 04:08:29 GMT

tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:

>Paul, I suggest you read a few of Thomas' opinions from the last year and
>then compare his reasoning abilties to that of Justice Souter's (try the
>PA abortion ruling).  Not only does Souter's writing ability stink, in 
>comparison with Thomas, his reasoning abilities need help.

Yes.  What if we had decided, even though it was wrong, to keep slavery
legal?  Surely more people based their lives around this law than base
their lives around abortion on demand.  This was the reason given for
keeping Roe v. Wade.  This is sound legal reasoning?  Not.
-- 
Dan Griffin                     Abort the whales with a nuclear handgun.
griffin@egr.msu.edu
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why isn't Rush libertarian?
Date: 14 Oct 92 09:45:26 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <122460038@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>I am curious why Rush does not consider himself libertarian.

I don't know about Rush, but I'd like to be a Libertarian.  Really I
would.  They're just so over-the-edge.  Sorry, but we really do need
roads, and law enforcement, and national defense.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt                          Here lies a Technophobe,
mvp@netcom.com                            No whimper, no blast.
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com                      His life's goal accomplished,
                                          Zero risk at last.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE #1
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:50:40 GMT

In <1bbl7kINNq1q@clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk> ecpzp@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr V A Noronha) writes:


>Marks out of 10 for the combatants:


>Bush      7
>Clinton   7
>Perot     8.5


>###  RESULT:  Perot takes votes from Clinton but not enough to save Bush's bacon ####


>If George Bush wants to avoid looking for a new home soon, he'd better take off his gloves.  Let's face it.  Clinton is a draft-dodging, dope-smoking, lie-telling adulterer.  Is this the man Americans are going to entrust with the leadership of the Free World?

He dodged the draft.  So did Dan Quayle.  He smoked dope.  Once.  He does tell
lies.  So do Bush and Quayle.  If you want specific examples, I can give you
plenty upon request.  He is not an adulterer; the Flowers claim was completely
unsubstantiated, and there has never been any evidence besides Flowers's claim
that Clinton ever had an adulterous affair.  Yes, this is the man Americans
are going to entrust with the leadership of the "Free World" (sic).  Much betterClinton than a man who lies on important matters and engages in illegal
activities with foreign dictators.

And as far as the Veep contest goes, Gore clearly won.
Quayle made the usual idiot of himself.  The man needs no help from the
media; he perpetuates the myth with every word he speaks.  Stockdale was
a joke.  Only Gore maintained a sense of maturity and a command of the facts.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: reaper@wixer.cactus.org (Keath Milligan)
Subject: Re: PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE #1
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 16:30:27 GMT

In article <1bbl7kINNq1q@clover.csv.warwick.ac.uk> ecpzp@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr V A Noronha) writes:
>
>Marks out of 10 for the combatants:
>
>
>Bush      7
>Clinton   7
>Perot     8.5
>
>
>###  RESULT:  Perot takes votes from Clinton but not enough to save Bush's bacon ####
>

Perot also took some points away from Bush.

>
>If George Bush wants to avoid looking for a new home soon, he'd better take off his gloves.  Let's face it.  Clinton is a draft-dodging, dope-smoking, lie-telling adulterer.  Is this the man Americans are going to entrust with the leadership of the Free World?
>

So what you're saying is that if Bush wants a win, his only chance is be
effective with the mud-slinging that is currently backfiring on him.
"Vote for me because the other guy is scum" is a weak argument for being
president.  One thing you need to realize is that not all Americans
belive protesting Viet Nam, avoiding military service and smoking dope
are heinous crimes.  Republicans just don't get it -- a sitting
president can only win re-election if the people are convinced in
high-percentages of that president's record of the last four years.

>Who's going to win the Quayle-Gore contest?  With Gore having everything to lose, my money's on V-President Quayle.

Expectations are too high for Gore and Quayle is underestimated.  It
will be interesting...  I'm not sure where you see Gore as having
everything to lose, could you explain that?
-- 
oooooo ooo o o  o            Keath Milligan            o  o  ooooo oooo oooooo
oooo oo ooo  o   o   Prometheus Light and Sound, Inc.   o   o  o ooooooooooooo
oooooooo o oo  o         Real/Time Communications        o    o o ooo oooooooo
oooooo oooo ooo  o  internet: reaper@wixer.cactus.org  o   o  o ooo oo ooooooo
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Subject: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Summary: What passes for proof in the mind of a conservative...
Keywords: Rush Liberal Media Anita Hill Clarence Thomas
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:29:53 GMT

I was watching Rush's TV show with a friend (who forced me to miss a
great Star Trek:Next Generation episode) last night and caught an
amusing bit at the end.

Proof of liberal media bias: The fraction of people who believe Clarence
Thomas has dropped from 54 to 38 percent while the number of people who
believe Anita Hill has risen from 27 to 43 percent. Obviously, this is
due to continuous liberal slanting of the news.

I really wish I had the ability to note a fact and instantly deduce the
evidence without a shred of proof. Could it be that the attacks on Anita
Hill faded while her testimony did not? Could it be all the politicians
who were on the committee running for cover? Perhaps there has been a shift
in bias from for conservatives to against conservatives due to shifts in
the economy?

We needn't bother asking anyone or try to determine why 16% of the public
changed their minds. Rush explains all.

Paul

[By the way, at the time, I considered her story to be more convincing, but
lacking any proof so I would have voted to confirm. Of course, he didn't have
the qualifications to be nominated in the first place, but that's another
issue.]

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre
From: pfinerty@nyx.cs.du.edu (big daddy hate box)
Subject: Re: Obviously not fans of Rush
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.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 14:11:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.160436.23744@walter.cray.com> jcarroll@ferris.cray.com (Jeff Carroll) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct13.074514.289@news.Hawaii.Edu>, rigler@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (80 Hours) writes:
>> 
>the blue light at K-mart). otherwise go back to your psychotic babbling.
>
>may you be reincarnated as finerty.
>
		OUCH. OUCH. PASS THE RETARDANT PLEASE. OUCH.

--
	     PJF--->BIOCHEM GRAD. STUDENT--U of UTAH oh yeah 
               "i am such a stupid,ignorant son of a bitch.
                           please kill me now."
						          "React with this!"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Think about it for a minute
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 15:36:50 GMT

young7905@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>Instead of criticising any "liberal" that has a solution, why not try and 
>think of your own solution. 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.

    I'm not sure how to react to this. I am, at times, critical of what 
Rush does. I'm just not prepared to make blanket condemnations of the man 
or his listeners based on a few instances in which he has admittedly gone 
beyond the bounds of good taste.

    Therefore, I'm sort of at a non-plus in being referred to as a "no one 
at all". My gut visceral reaction to it is slightly negative; I'm really not 
a nobody. Yet under my Taoist beliefs the greatest of accomplishments is to 
lose ones' self and become nobody. Since I can't claim to have reached that 
state of grace, I'm forced to disagree with your statement that no one at 
all in this group is critical of Rush.

>Is it really that satisfying to pan everyone's ideas on how to make this 
>world a better place to live. 

    No. It is, however, intensely satisfying to pan *your* ideas. Sorry 
about that.

>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. 

    How about "A conservative philosophy" instead of "THE conservative 
philosophy". Last time I checked there was still some divergence of opinion 
even amongst those who consider themselves to be conservatives.

>Maybe you'll see the solutions proposed by us "bleeding heart liberals" 
>aren't so stupid after all.

    Maybe, they will. If you want to increase the chances that will happen 
then I suggest that you should start phrasing your arguments in level-
headed, non-confrontational language which isn't guaranteed to raise every 
conservative's blood pressure the moment they read it.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez)
Subject: Re:  Rush is bad for our country
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:44:03 GMT

	Let me begin by saying that I am a registered Democrat and had supported
Dukakis back in '88, although I wasn't old enough to vote.  It seems every month
that goes by I become more and more conservative, and it is due to people
like Mr. Miller.  One last qualifier, my moving in the direction of conservatism
began before I started to listen to Rush Lambaugh.

	Mr. Miller, you claim that Rush preaches hate and intolerance.  I listen
to his show fairly regularly, and hate and intolerance do not seem to be the
focal point of his show.  Yes, he does attack some people and they always seem to
be radical leftists.  These radical leftists that he ridicules and attacks
deserve to be ridiculed and attacked.  Consequently, Rush also deserves to come
under criticism or attack for doing so--anyone who stakes a public opinion that
may be controversial will come under attack...it's just the way it is with
people.  

	The focal point of Rush's show seems, to me, to be this:  you can achieve
whatever you want if you apply yourself.  Time and again Rush has preached that
anyone can achieve anything in this country if they work hard at it.  What is it
about this philosophy that has you worried Mr. Miller?  Are you afraid that
Hispanics like myself may actually begin to think for ourselves, rather than
accept you as our "benefactor"?  Rush claims that you radical leftists want all
of us dependant on a government that you plan to control, I see nothing coming
from you or any of the leftists on this Newsgroup to counter this argument.  

	I am not a dittohead, but I do think that Rush makes a good point over
half the time.  That is being accurate, in my mind, a lot more often than
let's say, Molly Yard or any of the other leftist Radicals that make
controversial public statements.  All of you lefties complain that Rush's news on
the show is either a lie or totally biased.  That may be true, but I spent a year
reading the Boston Globe and have yet to figure out why it is a nationally renown
paper.  It is a liberal rag that is one step above tabloid journalism.  Now I'm
going to ask you liberals out there, how many of you get your news from a biased
rag like the Boston Globe or a fairly biased magazine like Newsweeks (I've
subscirbed to that for two or three years and it tends to lean to the left)?  If
any of you do get your lopsided news from sources such as these, then you have no
right complaining about dittoheads who get their news from Rush.  You radical
losers are driving moderates like me into the arms of Rush and the Republican
party.  Just you wait if Jack Kemp runs in '96...people like me will leave skid
marks as we flee from the Democratic party...and no!  I am not going to vote for
that lying cry baby Bill Clinton!  I don't like George Bush, but he is definitely
the lesser of two evils!


						Adios,
						John R. Gonzalez
From: fpittl@infopls.chi.il.us (Frank Pittel)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: GEORGE BUSH, STOP THE RED
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 23:58:32 CDT
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

BS> then Clinton went to visit his friend.

BS> *    Clinton spent Christmas in Finland with the family of a college
BS> friend before heading to Moscow where he spent five or six days
BS> touring.

BS> *    Clinton has repeatedly said that he opposed the war in Vietnam
BS> and that he attended several anti-war marches.  He participated in no
BS> anti-American demonstrations.

That's all fine and good, the problem I have with all of this (which is
what Bush origanly commented on) is Clintons inabilty to tell the truth.

He can't even tell the same story the same way times in a row.

First he didn't dodge the draft then he did a little then some more.
Each time it was a differant stroy.
Then he didn't organize protests then he did. (again sort-of)

The question that has to be asked here is. Does he even know what the
truth is about anything? What kind of president would he make? From what
I can tell when asked a tuff question his first instinct is to lie about
it. Then if pressed admit to the lie and blame Bush.

Frank
---
 * SLMR 2.0 *
From: doug@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (Doug Smith)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:12:40 GMT
Reply-To: doug@e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com
Organization: General Electric

In article 1@gacvx1.gac.edu, peckman@gacvx1.gac.edu () writes:
you->dear Rush fans,
you->It would be nice if you would realize that conservatism has led to most of our
you->country's current woes and if George Bush is re-elected, our country will fall
you->even farther behind Japan and Germany both educationally and economically. 
you->It's time for a change.  Our country needs fewer Rush Limbaughs and more Bill
you->Clintons.  Rush spouting off about goofy liberals will get us nowhere.  But
you->Bill Clinton as our next president will offer our country something it has
you->sorely lacked in the past 4 years...hope for the future!

me->
me-> Bill Clinton...isn't he that dude who can't answer a question about the
me-> president without either laughing or having that annoying smirk on his
me-> face? Yea, that's him. Can't wait 'til he's president so we can all take
me-> his lead and show equal respect for the man in the office. Yup, can't wait.
me->
me-> Wanna bet?


-----------------------------------------------------------
Doug Smith 			 General Electric Aerospace
e7sa.epi.syr.ge.com (second floor)
"Is it snowing??"
My opinions are mine because nobody agrees with them anyway.
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER JOSEPH McCARTHY BUSH
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:13:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <6596@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> rovero@wake.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:
>There's only one problem with this.  McCarthy went around accurately
>calling people communists and making a big deal about it BECAUSE:
>
>Communism, especially the brand of Marxist-Leninism actually in
>practice during the 20th century, IS and WAS EVIL!  It was WRONG.
>It was the greatest threat to freedom and real national independence
>ever seen on the earth. 
>
>What really pisses the liberals off:  Joe McCarthy was RIGHT!

Well, McCarthy was right in that Communism is a horrible thing.

But, he was _DEAD_ _WRONG_ in his method of fighting against it. 

Anyone who had any association with anything vaguely "Communistic"
was a threat to America. People who once attended a meeting of 
a organization with vaguely Communistic ties had there lives
ruined, unless they testified against their friends. 

One man, an military officer (Air Force, I think) had to defend
himself because his father and sister read radical newspapers. 

The McCarthy hearings were a mockery of what America stands for. 
McCarthy was wrong, very wrong, in his tactics. And I find it
terrifying that there are still people who defend that evil man. 
 
-- 
What the gamemasters wilt shall be the whole of the law.
	- Motto of the Hellfire Club, live-action roleplaying GM's
We need not fear those who do evil in the name of evil, but Heaven
protect us from those who do evil in the name of good.