HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A step too far...
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:58:00 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

>>If we work together, in a concerted effort, we can remove this idiot from
     ^^                                       ^^
>>the public domain, and send a warning to others who do the same.

>>Those of you who will decry this movement will make claims that we attempt
                                                                  ^^
>>to limit Mr. Limbaugh's first amendment rights.  Not so.  We have no
                                                            ^^
>>desire to shut him up, we just make it plain that we feel this type of
                         ^^                         ^^

I'm sure that Rush's millions of listeners can't wait to be properly
enlightened and influenced by your "group."

 ===========================================================================|
 |                                      | Success is getting what you want. |
 |Don Wiggins                           | Happiness is wanting what you get.|
 |Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner       |
 ===========================================================================|
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 09:45:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.215124.7030@samba.oit.unc.edu> Norman.Miller@launchpad.unc.edu (Norman Miller) writes:
>
>Great subject.  It sums up perfectly the bizarre mentality of the Fat
>Party that George Bush's (George Bush, for God's sake!) admirers 
>see nothing wrong in calling the Democrats whiners.
>
>No complaint, mind you, quite the contrary.  I look forward to four
>years of resentful, dyspeptic, and of course empty prose from the
>Bush leaguers.  Carry on.
>
As opposed to the last 12 years of resentful, dyspeptic, and equally
empty prose from resentful Democrats. Sauce for the goose. What short
memories the victors have. Almost as short as the winners.
Carry on...

Matt Marchese
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8482 alt.politics.clinton:16991
From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: This is OUTRAGEOUS...
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:20:58 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento



		November 11, 1992:
   
Bill Clinton (President-Elect) was at the Arkansas War 
Veterans Memorial Service today.
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. A DRAFT DODGER "honoring" war
veterans with his presence? 
  
Okay, okay. Let's just put this in perspective. 



Bill Clinton at the Veterans' Day Memorial is like:
  
* Sinead O'Connor at Burger King 
* Willie Horton outside prison
* Jerry Brown having Earth citizenship 
* Gloria Steinem chasing men 
* Madonna teaching chastity 
* Jack Kervorkian doing CPR  
* Earth First! running a logging company
* Fidel Castro joining Amnesty International
* The Sacramento Kings at the NBA Playoffs
* Dr. Spock giving corporal punishment 
* David Duke in the NAACP 
* Van Halen teaching classical music
* Molly Yard in a swimsuit
 
=============================================================================
-----Steve Chaney: Founder, Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0-------
	           The B.O.S.S. does not speak for CSUS. 
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:14:08 GMT
Subject: Re: FROM PEROT VOTER -- CONGRATULATIONS BILL
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, jaeger@buphy.bu.edu (Gregg Jaeger) writes:

> In article <1992Nov4.150110.16771@klaava.Helsinki.FI> leisti@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Teemu Leisti) writes:
> >jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz) writes:
> 
> >> TO THE CLINTON/GORE SUPPORTERS:
> 
> >> They have ALOT of work to do, and I believe that people will want to see
> >> positive results quickly this year, and that is a very hard thing to do.
> 
> Time to read some foreign policy books :)

It is not clear to me why people seem to think foreign policy
is so indecipherable.  Look at George.  He recovered quite nicely
and kicked his ass after pursuing a policy that was dangerously
close to appeasement.  There is no reason why Clinton can't
do a good job in foreign policy.  Of course, the question is,
will he use military force soon to establish credibility?

doug
From: catstyle@cathouse.aiss.uiuc.edu (Jason R. Heimbaugh)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A step not far enough...
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:44:04 GMT
Reply-To: jrh@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

In article <1992Nov13.053850.1507@news.ysu.edu> ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley  
Miller) writes:
> Limbaugh has gotten to the point where even the most conservative person
> is becoming disgusted with him.

?

--
Jason R. Heimbaugh (CatStyle)
jrh@uiuc.edu
"Wait a minute mister, I didn't even kiss her..." --Ronnie Van Zant
"Wait a minute mister, I didn't even stick her..." --Johnny Van Zant
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green)
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:29:23 GMT
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network

>In article <92317.231441MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> Mark 'Mark' Sachs <MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>>Perhaps my memory fails me, but I don't recall too many significant
>>instances of "liberals" fighting free speech, beyond a few trivial
>>and likely unconstitutional speech codes at universities, and a **JOKE**
>>posting proposing the rmgroup of alt.rush-limbaugh. In my experience
>>liberals have been quite forthright in defense of the First Amendment.
>>
>>Perhaps you can point out a few opposing examples for us?


Well, how about a few others?  The Arther De Moss Foundation adoption
instead of abortion ads are very tasteful, but the major networks still
will not run them.  They have no problem with NARL ads, though.

Another.  Governor Casey was invited to speak at a Village Voice sponsored
lecture on the topic "Can a liberal be pro-life".  He was shouted off the
stage by ACTUP, WHAM and WAC, shouting "Racist, sexist, antigay, Governor
Casey go away".  (Even though Casey has an outstanding record on minortiy
issues, and has increased Pennsylvania's AIDS funding from $656,000 to
$21 million.)  ACTUP also tried to disrupt Casey's second inaugural last
year, shouting obscenities through the whole thing.  Donna Minkowitz of the
Village Voice stated Casey speaking was like having Jerry Falwell speak and the
Voice sholdn't sponsor a pro-life speach, because it's like sponsoring one by
a Nazi.

Another?  Camille Paglia.  Whenever she tries to speak with Feminazis present,
she gets shouted down.

Nuff said.
From: enor@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Re: Can you say Prez Clinton ???
Organization: University of Lowell
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:42:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.184844.4915@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com (Steven Martin) writes:
> In article <1992Nov4.174942.1@woods.ulowell.edu> , enor@woods.ulowell.edu
> writes:
>>Can you say "President Bill Clinton"?
>>
>>P
>>PR
>>PRE
>>PRES
>>PRESI
>>PRESID
>>PRESIDE
>>PRESIDEN
>>PRESIDENT
>>PRESIDENT_
>>PRESIDENT B
>>PRESIDENT BI
>>PRESIDENT BIL
>>PRESIDENT BILL
>>PRESIDENT BILL_
>>PRESIDENT BILL C
>>PRESIDENT BILL CL
>>PRESIDENT BILL CLI
>>PRESIDENT BILL CLIN
>>PRESIDENT BILL CLINT
>>PRESIDENT BILL CLINTO
>>PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON
>>
>>WOW I actually said that.  Well I guess admittance is
>>the first step towards acceptance. 
> 
> Nope, so far the best I have been able to get out
> is "Comrade President Clintski." But I find that most
> of my liberal friends prefer it if I refer to him as
> Slick Willy. Gonna be a fun four years, for the first
> time a president I truly have no respect for at all! I
> think I see why the liberals have at least been enjoying
> themselves.
> 
>         Steve Martin
>         steve@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com
> 
> "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and
>  bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against 
>  tyranny in government."  Thomas Jefferson

    This is Enor@Woods.ulowell.edu.

	Those are my sentiments exactly.  Just thik though.  There's no way
Kemp can't win in 96 now.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:40:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.183522.4251@m5.harvard.edu> borden@m5.harvard.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.140922.25193@fia.dmg.ml.com> jogulin@pub_one.fia.dmg.ml.com (Milamber) writes:
>>
>>You're about right.  The percentage of voters afraid of Billy-boy is the total
>>of the percentages of people who didn't vote for him.  Bush got 38% of the
>>popular vote, Perot got 17% (we're at 55% already, folks!), plus all the votes
>>for the various other candidates found on the ballots in each of the states.
>>The fact that Billy-boy won with less than 50% of the popular vote is what's
>>really scary.
>>
>Then George Bush must be even scarier, since over 60 percent voted against him.
>And Ross Perot must be even scarier, since 80 percent of voters voted against
>him.  Can't you people get it throught your heads?  It was a three-way race!
>In a three-way race, the odds of someone winning with less than half the
>popular vote are greatly increased.  It doesn't mean that all the people
>who voted for someone else is scared of the winner.  It just means that they
>preferred another.  Just because _you_ happen to be scared of Bill Clinton
>doesn't mean that everyone else who didn't vote for him is scared of him.
>There's evidence from polls that about half of Perot's votes would have gone
>to Clinton, and about half to Bush, which would have left Clinton with well
>over fifty percent of the popular vote.  Also, I'd like to point out that
>Clinton made serious inroads into traditionally Republican territory, including
>New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and California.  What does
>the fact that so many Republican voters turned away from Bush this time mean?
>Maybe it means that _they_ thought that four more years of George Bush would
>be really scary.  I know I was scared at that thought, though I didn't vote
>for him in the first place.
>
I concede that New Hampshire was an important win for the Democrats, but
I should also point out that Clinton won there by 6,500 (approx.) votes, or 
about 1%.  Given the enormous growth of southern New
Hampshire (particularly the Nashua area), and given that southern New
Hampshire is the "most" Democratic part of the state, I would speculate
that the voting population has changed significantly.  I'm certain there
are many Republicans who voted Democrat there, but I would 
also state that the voting population itself has changed.

Rocky Giovinazzo
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.bizarre,misc.test,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.job.gooley
From: mike@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Cosmik Debris)
Subject: Re: WANKERS
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:19:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.231546.9020@cs.ucf.edu>, jinxiong@cs.ucf.edu (Chen Jinxiong) writes:
> What is a wanker?
>
 
I think you have answered your own question!

-- 
Cosmik Debris --- "I owe money, therefore I am!"
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Globe and Mail article on Rush
Summary: Why do ym> think Rush is a hate-monger?
Keywords: hate
Date: 10 Nov 92 06:32:13 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <8641@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> dejst5+@pitt.edu
(David E Joslin) writes:
<jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
<>>|> It paints him as a mean-spirited anti-liberal bigot who preys on
<>>|> women, gays, and blacks.
<>
<>The mere fact that some people think "anti-liberal" is synonymous with 
<>hate-monger or mean-spirited speaks volumes.
<
<Who said they were synonymous? Rush could be anti-liberal without being
<a hate-monger.  Or he could be a hate-monger without being anti-liberal.
<It just happens that he is both.

Why do you think that (that he is a hate-monger)?  There doesn't seem
to be any doubt in your mind. How is it that you know so well what
modivates Rush and what goes on in his mind?

<>And it would certainly be 
<>a curious bigot who is so supportive of conservative blacks, women, and 
<>gays, while attacking liberals. 
<
<"Some of my best friends are X" and "Hey -- it was just a joke!" are
<two favorite excuses of any bigot.  Rush uses both.

I've never heard Rush say the first.  In any case, why are either of
these proof of bigotry?

<If character isn't an issue ... why isn't George Bush president?

Because Bush doesn't have character?
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:02:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.171300.11448@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:

["Democrats == crybabies" deleted...]

>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>                           | Support the coup!

	Look, buster, this is America, and Clinton's our new president.

	If you don't like it here, then you can always move to some
other country. It's that simple.

	That's right. America: love it or leave it.

	[Note: all this is a satire of right-wing "patriotic" rhetoric.]

/Loren
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Rush is such a bad loser
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 06:20:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.184245.3984@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com writes:
>In article 14586@EE.Stanford.EDU, budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:

>
>You make it sound like this was a one-way ugly campaign.  It was not.
>Herschensohn did not even give a concession speech until the next day
>and when he did he was especially bitter.  He knew it was over at about
>8:01PM when the exit poll results were announced, however he failed to
>give a concession speech that night.  No class.
>
>

He waited to give a concession speech the next day. So what? And, although
his speech was on the bitter side, he did not lobby false and defamatory
attacks against Boxer. And, how predictable are exit polls? After
the Californians bitched and moaned about the evils of polls... I suppose
that he should have been on the air at 8.01 on the strength of polls.

I never suggested that the campaign was nasty only one way. However,
the attacks against Boxer were generally of a political nature,
attacking her less than glittering record of deceit and gluttony
in the house. On the other hand, Boxer attacked Herschensohn personally.
And, a couple of Democrats from "Rent a Goon" surfaced to introduce
some pieces of information, be they true or not, about Herschensohn's
choice of evening entertainment. Wether or not Boxer tried to
divorce herself from the slime, I still smell a rat, no better than
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:24:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.225726.6857@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9041679@henson.cc.wwu.edu (brian h. harper) writes:
|> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
|> 
|> >I just went down to our library to check. According to the World
|> >Almanac, the vote total was: 
|> 
|> >Reagan:  54,281,858
|> >Mondale: 37,457,215
|> 
|> >I'll let you do the math but it looks like a wider margine than 5%.
|> 
|> Here's the math: Reagan: 58.8%
|>                  Mondale: 40.6%
|> A margin of 18.2% I'd call that a landslide.

Here's another factoid for everyone's memory.  In 1980, the last election in
which there was a significant 3-way vote, the percentages were:

   Reagan:  51%
   Carter:  41%
   Anderson: 7%

Reagan still had over 50% of the vote, even though Anderson clearly split the
Republican vote.

-- 
// John Townsend                                   Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          "Don't blame me,        johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.     I voted for Bush."        ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342                                         (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gsmith@clio.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith)
Subject: Re: Those Wacky Conservatives!
Organization: IWR, University of Heidelberg, Germany
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 18:13:46 GMT

In article <VNTZTB5w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave
O'Shea) writes:

>I didn't spend much time watching either convention, but if there was
>one that stood out for spewing hate, divisiveness, anger, and mistrust,
>it was the democratic one.

If you didn't watch the conventions, how do you know?  Psychic powers?

In fact, the Republican convention was the most hate filled convention
I have ever seen.  There was a lot of hate inside the Cow Palace with
the Republicans in 1964, and even more out on the streets of Chicago
in 1968.  But in 1992, we had stuff that starts you wondering if the
Republicans are going to evolve into Nazis.

>How so? Because Robertson got a 15-minute off-peak block to satisfy the
>religious loonies? One could as easily say that since 'ol Rev. Jesse
>spoke at the DNC, the Democrats are trying the same thing..

The relgious loonies got a lot more than that.  Which maybe you would
have known, had you watched.

>Compare this with current leftist propaganda; such as "college education
>is a right, not a privilege".

Ronald Reagan said that.  Of course, it was a part in a movie...

>And it gets worse. How can you defend using up those valuable resources
>to educate someone, while these is even one person who goes to bed
>hungry on the face of the earth?

If it hadn't been for those over-educated scientists, a lot more people
would have starved by now.


-- 
     Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University 
               gsmith@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: A Reason to Vote for Clinton??
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 20:49:55 GMT

     This is a quote from the November 16 issue of Time magazine:

     "Every woman I know is having sex dreams about Bill Clinton. We're finally
getting a President our own age who we can imagine having sex with. I don't
recall anyone having sex dreams about Michael Dukakis."

                         -- Cheryl Russell, middle-aged Baby Boomer

     During the campaign, Rush Limbaugh asked over and over again for people to
give him concrete reasons why they were voting for Clinton. I wonder what he
would have made of this reason?
     Could this explain the "gender gap" in the exit polls?
     Is Hillary happy about millions of women dreaming about having sex with
her husband?
     On the other hand, is Kitty upset that no American women have sex dreams
about *her* husband?
     What would a sex dream with Bill Clinton include? Any cries of
"Sooooooooooeeeeeyyy!" in there?
     The questions raised by the above quote, and any answers from netters, 
could lead to a long, amusing thread. Any takers? :-)

                                        Steve
///
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mphall@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Hall)
Subject: Re: The quintessential dittohead!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:13:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.180732.1303@dbsun.uucp> hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu writes:
>
>Why doesn't it suprise me that a dittohead can't figure out how to
>program a VCR?  I'm suprised she didn't ask Rush how to do it. 
>After all, Rush knows everything, and he's always right, right?
>
	Yeah.  I think the whole vcr thing has something to do with 
the implants some people need to hold all the contradictory and 
convoluted things beamed out over the airwaves by Rush.  Most people
are "wiped" so they forget the process even happened, but it's easy to 
tell:

	1)  the subject drools

	2)  the subject has two large scars on the temples with 
	gold leaf contacts

	3)  the subject forgets how to do anything but somehow find the
	time away from work to call and berate the lazy good for
        nothings ruining the country

	4)  the subject can't make their altered brain think of their 
	fingers as anything but foot-thick sausages, prompting many
	to learn to dial with their tongues, which they think of as 
	Patriot Pencils (#2)

	It's a tragic situation to be in.

	I have learned by observing the dittoheads in the office, who 
have, like many dittoheads I've met in extensive travels, learned to 
conceal the scars.

	-Mike


-- 
Michael Hall    mphall@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
--


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.guns
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Drug use (Re: The Rush Blimp?)
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 09:48:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.141718.2610@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
}
}According to C. Everett Koop, nicotine is as addictive as cocaine.
}

Wrong.  Moreso.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Electoral Mandate?
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
	<1d97u0INN3vi@spool.mu.edu> <Bx8yAt.C6L.2@cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:25:43 GMT

According to ABC news, this makes the 16th president that
has been elected with less than 50% of the popular vote?
What did Reagan get in '80?
--


Matt Landrum                    | mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "There's a fine line between 
Starkville, MS  39759           |  stupid and clever" -- Spinal Tap