HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Date: 3 Oct 92 23:48:16 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: szechuan.ucsd.edu

In article <122460005@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>Of course rush fans will not get upset by this, because rush himself
>is always telling people to calm down and have a sense of humor.
>I wonder if he means it.

I've heard the show.  He *has* to have a sense of humor.  Nothing
could be that funny unintentionally.

							spl


-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"If you don't think people are this crazy, you need to move to LA!"
                                     - Gary Stollman
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:08:37 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University

dan@ektools.kodak.com (Daniel P. Schaertel) writes:

>Why ? because a good portion of the net is comprised of college
>students.  People who haven't had to pay the price that liberalism
>brings.  These people are very idealistic.  So is liberalism.  The
>problem is when you live in the real world you see that the ideas of
>these people don't work.  I used to be somewhat liberal myself, but 14
>years in the work force and a family of 4 has changed the way I look at
>life.

Ditto here.  One of my univ. English profs said that when she and her
husband were in college they thought the government should do more for
everybody, but after they graduated they realized that they would be 
the ones paying for it all, and then they changed their minds.
-- 
Dan Griffin                     "We lost our corkscrew and had to live
griffin@egr.msu.edu              on food and water."  WC Fields
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
Subject: Re: Rush burns Hillary, and other things...
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:48:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.175831.22596@news.eng.convex.com>, roan@convex.com (Russell Roan) writes:
|> 	Uhh, I don't really expect any of you dittoheads to know this,
|> 	so I'll just let you know that one must first complete an 
|> 	undergraduate degree before being awarded a Rhodes scholarship.  
|> 	Thus Bill Clinton must have completed a college degree before
|> 	even applying for the Rhodes.
|>
|> 	[bluster, blather]

As I recall, from the TV show at least, Rush was castigating Clinton for using
the Vietnam war as an excuse for dropping out of college.  Clinton says,

   "My class had the highest percentage of Rhodes scholars that never
    earned a degree because we were right there in the middle of the
    Vietnam War build-up."

Rush's point was that he looked up the statistics for Rhodes scholars at
Oxford, and on average, only 80% graduate.  Sure enough, in Clinton's class
only 80% graduated, and Clinton was in the 20% that didn't.

-- 
// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central          wrong once, but         johnt@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr.      I was mistaken."         ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH  45342            8-}                          (513) 865-7250 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: The truth about lies
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:27:10 GMT

kellyb@ccsua.ctstateu.edu writes:

>     Because Bill Clinton went to Moscow back in 70 does not make him
>     a traitor.The interests of the right wingers would have you believe
>     he was trying to get a job with the KGB.When the want of peace becomes
>     associated with being a communist then it is clear we have not learned
>     anything since the conflict in Vietnam.There is no proof Clinton was
>     involved in anti-American demonstrations and there is no proof that he
>     dogged the draft so anyone who impLIES otherwise is only giving there
>     opinion and you know what they say about them.

In my opinion, the way Clinton got into Moscow is just like the way Hanoi
Jane (Jane Fonda) got into cambodia, she was sympathetic to the communist
cause and was anti-war (against the US being in the Viet. war, remember how
the vietcong used her--photos,etc).
The soviets saw this young Clinton as a "head full of mush" that they could
utilize for propaganda.  Of course he was lead about, saw the sights, but
"never remembered meeting with the KGB", and finally was part of the 
famous `peace train'

Mark
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Who deserves a wasted vote?
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<Bv5JDD.KKC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
	<LARRY.92Sep27131245@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> <0a_pf9b.mvp@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 05:35:51 GMT

In article <0a_pf9b.mvp@netcom.com> mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt) writes:

   In article <LARRY.92Sep27131245@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
   > >The gist is that Bush is a failure and does not deserve another 4 years.
   >Therefore, Clinton deserves four years?

Whoa! Mike, ole buddy! Just a minute here. You are citing what the
previous poster wrote. I did not write this..

   Thomas Sowell, in a recent editorial, said the question wasn't
   weather Bush deserved another four years, the question was does
   the United States deserve four years of Clinton.  His opinion was
   that the answer to both questions was "NO!"

   > Clinton is not equivalent to the contrary of Bush.  Why endorse
   >any of these fools?  As I have stated before, I shall exercise my
   >prerogative and not vote for President.

Again, I didn't write this, Mike..

   Don't not vote for  President.  Perot is on the ballot in all 50
   states; if you find him tolerable, as compared to B&C, vote for him.  I
   believe the Libertarian Party has also gotten on the ballot in all 50
   states; a vote for Andre Marrou would be another possibility.  If
   neither of those are to your liking, there are candidates to the right
   (the American Independant Party) and to the left (Fulani's "New
   Alliance" party.  CPUSA may even be running someone this year, though
   since most of their funds came from the USSR, they may be defunct.)

   I'm considering a write-in for Dave Barry.  It's time for an anarchist
   in the White House.

   >Sure.. well, there is always Perot.. (if you're going to throw your
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   >vote away).  Might as well REALLY waste it!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, I *did* say this! 

   The point is, there are lots of alternatives to not voting, which
   is the biggest waste.

I agree. I AM voting. For Clinton.. No doubt in my mind. It's the cowboy way.

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 sure, we could do it the _easy_ way. But it just wouldn't be the COWBOY WAY.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6032 talk.abortion:39201
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:46:15 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <saurav.717277753@cory.Berkeley.EDU> saurav@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Saurav Chatterjee) writes:
>mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep22.123959.2529@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>>>
>>> Yes, but criticizing the unrealistic depiction of liberals as "good"
>>> and conservatives as "evil" is not.  Would you criticize a TV show for
>>> a strong pro-life message?  If you're pro-choice (I assume you are), I'd
>>> bet you would.  So back off - Danny was right in his criticisms of the
>>> show _and_ the character.
>>>					   -Jeff Barnes
>>>
>
>Quayle, as usual, was dead wrong!
>
>Murphy Brown accidentally became pregnant.
>She could a) abort the
>fetus, b) give it up for adoption, 
or c) raise the child herself.

 Bullshit you idiot, a MAN will pay child support. 
>Choice a is unacceptable to Quayle. When Quayle made his speech,
 To the NOW crowd and naive idiots like you, the women has ALL the
choices. 
>Murphy had just given birth to the child, which is a necessary procedure
>to fulfill either options b) or c) . 

 Or d). stiff the asshole for child support. 
>
>One main reason that a child is better off with both a mother and
>a father is that then the child has a better chance of living out
>of poverty. With MB, that point is moot. 

Bullshit again nimrod. HE will pay child support whether HE likes it
or not.
>
>Second, it is benefecial to have a male role-model. MB provides that
>with Frank, Miles, etc. A loving male role-model is much better than
>an indifferent father. 
>
  I see, SHE provides the fatherly role. How come I get the feeling you hate
fathers.

>Third, the father of the kid chose to leave MB. Legally, the only

 He can leave all he wants, but he'll have to leave his wallet behind.

>recourse is to collect child support. Obviously, in the case of
>MB, this point is again moot because MB has enough money. And a forced
>marriage is not the answer.
>
 Forced fatherhood happens every god damn minute in this country. 

>adapted to real life. Unlike Marilyn, not every mother can affort
>to stay home. 

  What working mother making 15 grand a year can afford DAY Care, 
and why in HELL would someone spend 800.00 per month for infant
care when they could stay home and take care of the little shit
themselves for free. MOST working women can't afford to work and
pay child care. So the NOW crowd insists SHE is entitled to 
work, free daycare and a guarenteed standard of living (see family
law on books in every state). 

Bullshit. I'm not paying for her way. 

Murphy Brown is Fiction all right, pure BULLSHIT!

>
>Saurav Chatterjee
>


Murphy Brown is alright because SHE can afford to be a mother and 
a complete idiot in my book.
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:03:54 GMT
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <1992Sep29.224315.19374@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> madkins@lonestar.utsa.edu (Martin L. Adkins) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.190854.21294@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>In article <92272.192542KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>Well, you have to realize that the Net is a liberal haven, with a low
>>>percentage of conservatives.  (Don't ask me why, it's just a fact.)
>>
>>Thats due to the fact that you have to be able to type (even with just one
>>finger) to use the Net.  That eliminates most conservatives.
>>
>>Have a nice day :)  No, on second thought, have a repressed, regulated,
>>guilt filled conservative day.
>
>Now I must admit this is the type of liberal argument I'm quite used to
>with no facts and considerable name calling.   I believe that there is
>still room in this counntry for diverse opinion, political correctness
>not withstanding.  Personaly I believe my arguments are sufficiently strong
>to allow me to resist the overwhelming urge to call you an idiot.
>Have a day:)  No second thoughts required.

(Well, since this _is_ alt.FAN.rush_limbaugh, let me respond in the same
fashion as Rush does when a liberal caller objects to his hasty 
overgeneralizations and cruel jokes)

This just shows that you people have no sense of humor. (crinkle paper)
You can't take a joke.  Hey, lighten up, have fun, laugh a little. 
(drum fingers on console)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: csmith@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Distribution: na, usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:47:24 GMT

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.

CRAIG EDWARD SMITH         //                        "Oh, fuggernuts!"--Skywise
csmith@cis.ohio-state.edu //            "Shut up! I'm winning!"--Halstrom Whipp
orson@bluemoon.rn.com    //       "Life is a fulltime occupation."--Gene Kalman
csmith@onetouch.COM     //"It's exactly the same only different."--Orson Nestor

From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:08:46 GMT
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:

> 	All this from a band that has had maybe 5 serious hits in their 
> entire 30 year career. All it takes is a bunch of die hard fans and viola,
> instant stardom. I think that it's safe to say that Rush is to politics 
> what the Grateful Dead is to modern pop music.

Rush is to politics what a maggot with a sense of humor is to 
a dead dog.

doug
From: lape@cs.utk.edu (Bryon S. Lape)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: All Hail the mighty Rush...
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:34:01 GMT
Organization: University of Tennessee, Knoxville - CS Department
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: duncan.cs.utk.edu
Originator: lape@duncan.cs.utk.edu

	This guy is great!  We just starting getting his radio and tv show
around here.  About time!!  For once we get the truth!  If the liberal
media would just tell the truth, then Rush would be out of a job!  Oh well,
I guess we cannot have everything.

	To all of those who think Clinton is a moderate, get your head out
of the sand.  With Clinton as pres., this country will go down fast!


Bryon Lape
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The American education system only teaches you to go into debt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:32:42 GMT
	<1992Sep28.040636.1556@umbc3.umbc.edu> <zn_pwy#.jrs@netcom.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

In article <zn_pwy#.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
            [...]
   >	The best analogy to the sillyness of this thread is to point out
   >that the Grateful Dead is indisputably the most sucessful touring band
   >in history, particularly lately, when they have been able to sell out
   >Giant stadium as often as they were willing to play there.
   >
   >	All this from a band that has had maybe 5 serious hits in their 
   >entire 30 year career. All it takes is a bunch of die hard fans and viola,
   >instant stardom. I think that it's safe to say that Rush is to politics 
   >what the Grateful Dead is to modern pop music.
   >
   >	Yea, Rush fans are the political equivelent of DeadHeads. I like it.

   Well, you keep on telling yourself that and maybe you'll eventually believe 
   it. It would be just another example of how some people refuse to accept
   reality even when it stares them in the face. Meanwhile, the people who 
   listen to Rush will continue to have an effect on politics, pushing back
   the liberalism that has infected society so much.

..and the *American Way*! (I can hear the music rising.. Can't you?)

Good luck.

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..
Because the plot demands: an EVIL man!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:38:10 GMT

Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes
> Cathi Cook@dollar.crd.ge writes:
>> varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Bruce Varney) writes:

>>> No - it is an irresponsible and cowardly acy. Killing a defenseless
>>> child for convenience's sake is deplorable.

>> Do please tell us Bruce, how inconvenient you found it to be when you
>> were pregnant.

> Today's word of the day is "Straw man".  Can everybody here say, "Straw
> man"?  Claiming that a person should not oppose murder because of their
> gender is silly.  If someone considers abortion murder, then they are
> morally bound to oppose it.

Lots of pro-lifers have spouted "Abortion is Murrderr!!!" but I've never
seen any of them come to grips with the implications of their rhetoric.

>> If you have never been pregnant, please do not insult the intelligence
>> of the women here who _have_ with your high-handed, arrogant dismissal
>> of the very real physical and emotional risks of every pregnancy.
 
> I prefer his moral stand to your sniping, empty attacks.

So you prefer to be judgemental and condemning with no other facts before
you than "a woman has had an abortion?"  That's your idea of a moral stand?
Perhaps you'd like to take a seat with the Pharisees[1] over there?

[1] one the meanings of 'pharisee' in my dictionary is: "a person marked by
hypocritical, censorious self-righteousness.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary
From: sqapds@sn089.uca (Peter D. Slowik)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush and the liberal conspiracy
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:17:51 GMT
Reply-To: sqapds@sn089.uca
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article 26869@ils.nwu.edu, hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER) writes:
>In article <38440@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
>writes:
>> 
>> I was listening to Larry King last night and he was receiving many
>> phonecalls from viewers asking him questions about the Rush Limbaugh
>> show.
>> Larry responded by saying that Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan e.a. are
>> all part of a gigantic liberal conspiracy to give conservatism a bad
>> name. ...
>
>All Rush fans were I work,  hes on once a month,  are what you might call
>liberal.  All are for Roe vs. Wade, Clinton,  Civil Rights,  Limited
>Government,  Higher Education spending, etc.
>
>Clinton watching is a ritual for us,  kind of like tribal stories (I guess
>no one here has ever read Levi-Strauss).  After an hour of Rush all
>                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>confusion is gone,  we become sure that Republicans must be stopped,  we
>                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   
>become more willing to except a C+ govenor like Clinton.
>
>I am sure that we are no isolated,  I am sure that Rush knows
>this.

Dare I say "Ditto"? :)
From: dan@ektools.kodak.com (Daniel P. Schaertel)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:30:48 GMT
Organization: Eastman Kodak

In article <92272.192542KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>In article <gelpRem00Voq8_wkN1@andrew.cmu.edu>, Randy Eugene Griffith
><rg3c+@andrew.cmu.edu> says:
>
>>So I check out some messages.  It seems that there are far more haters
>>of Rush Limbaugh here than fans.  Is this really a fan base?  If all you
>>people want to do is lambast everything Rush says, why don't you start a
>>alt.critic.rush-limbaugh bb?
>
>Well, you have to realize that the Net is a liberal haven, with a low
>percentage of conservatives.  (Don't ask me why, it's just a fact.)
>Then it all makes sense.
>

Why ? because a good portion of the net is comprised of college
students.  People who haven't had to pay the price that liberalism
brings.  These people are very idealistic.  So is liberalism.  The
problem is when you live in the real world you see that the ideas of
these people don't work.  I used to be somewhat liberal myself, but 14
years in the work force and a family of 4 has changed the way I look at
life.  My VALUES are different.  These college students basically are
only responsible for themselves,(and many of them probably aren't even
good at that).  They haven't really learned what responsibility is.  And
that is one of the major difference between liberalism and conservatism.



Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6279 alt.politics.elections:15119 talk.abortion:40525 alt.sex:31905 alt.politics.clinton:8428 alt.politics.bush:7697 talk.politics.misc:49477
From: jseaver@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Date: 5 Oct 1992 12:37:31 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu

In article <1992Oct4.183314.1679@nwnexus.WA.COM> jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:
>In article <1ad9meINNbkq@bigboote.WPI.EDU> jseaver@arkose.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
>>
>>	Very, VERY few people would complain about abortion when the mother's
>>life is in danger.  However, if the woman is pregnent through voluntary sex...
>>Well, you could say she's committed herself.

>In other words, she made her bed now she should be forced to lie in it.
>Sounds like punishing her for wanting sex, doesn't it?  Doesn't sound
>like any higher beliefs like the fetus is a person, but control and punishment,
>pure and simple.  She had sex voluntarily, and therefore must pay.
>Has absolutely nothing to do with fetal rights at all.
>
>That's the picture you've painted, Jay.  Care to elaborate?

	I don't know as I'd put it quite that way, but people should take
responsibilities for their actions.  People know that pregnancy is a possible
outcome of sex, and ideally will accept the consequences - mother and father
both.  I personally don't have any real ability to say whether a fetus is a
person or not - but I would be more and more sqeamish about an abortion the
farther into a pregnancy it was considered; of course I am male and don't have
to worry about it as much, do I?

	The unborn child does deserve consideration, and an abortion should be
avoided if at all possible, but it's ultimately the decision of the parent(s).
The entire issue eventually comes down to personal responsibility, so what's
wrong with pointing out that more early on would be a better solution to the
problem?

					-Jay


Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6364 alt.rush-limbaugh:6694