HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: costin@cs.mcgill.ca (Costin RIZAN)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH: OUT OF A JOB?
Date: 7 Oct 92 20:18:38 GMT
Organization: SOCS - Mcgill University, Montreal, Canada

In article <!9sz4tg@rpi.edu> root@june.cmp.rpi.edu () writes:
>In article <2566.339.uupcb@eabbs.uucp> neil.black@eabbs.uucp (Neil Black)  writes:
>>What will happen in four weeks when Clinton is elected?  Will Rush admit
>>that he's wrong and that Reagonomics were wrong?  Boy, wouldn't it be
>>great to see Rush go away and someone intelligent like Ray Taliaferro
>>take his place?  I'd like that....
>>        
>
>Gee, I didn't know Rush is on the air because George Bush is President!
>
>I thought the reason might be the 12 million listeners, the fact his show is 
>the number #1 talk show in the country.
>I don't think 12 million people will vanish when Clinton gets elected next 
>month.
>
>Rush is a single fish in the sea of liberalisim.
>What scares you about Rush? The fact that a viewpoint differing from yours
>has some popularity?
>
>It makes me laugh that liberals scream about freedom of speech, it seems they
>only want to protect it when they agree with its content.
>
	Notice he didn't say that he was treatened by Rush. All he said
basically was that Rush is an imbecile. An opinion that most people with
a double digit I.Q. share.

	As far as I'm concerened I don't give a damn about Rush's opinions.
I think he's a turn off for the republican party. I suspect that even long
lasting republicans don't want to be identified with this cretin.

	I think most of his audience tune in because he's simply too
grotesque to miss. It's the same phenomenon that makes people gather
around the scene of an accident and stare at the victims being carried
out.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu (James Douglas Del-Vecchio)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Western Washington University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:33:21 GMT

rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero) writes:

>It *is* rather curious that Clinton would "tour" the Soviet Union AND
>Czechoslovakia so soon after the '68 repression.

>Clinton impresses me more and more as a man of principle.   NOT!

	The issue as I understand it, is not merely that he went to
the Soviet Union so soon afterwards, but that he denied going there
when asked about it on television.

Jim Del Vecchio
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 12:48:19 GMT

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:

>And as much as you conservatives try to be-little it, being commander of
>a state's National Guard for 12 years (yes, during which time he had to
>call it out at least twice) is no small experiance which means nothing.

You're joking, right?


MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:34:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.024125.7749@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
 
>"Intelligent Liberal" is an oxymoron, and a liberal is just a moron.
>
>:)
>Simon
 
Simon...until now, I respected you, because you seemed to be trying to
have a serious debate.  Now, you have sunk to silly name-calling, and
you have lost my respect.  And *NO*, the smiley does not change that.
 
I am quite a bit more liberal than you, although I do not find myself
in agreement with all "liberal" positions.  I am considered intelligent
by everyone who knows me.  You just insulted me with your silly
comments.  If you want to have a serious discussion with people, that
is not the right way to proceed.
 
Jim McMaster
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:17:16 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
 <6552@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>

In article <6552@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John
Locke) says:

>None of the other justices have had their character called into question.
>Thomas' character has been quite seriously called into question. If he is
>innocent, he owes it to the American public to forcefully defend himnself
>and restore the public's confidence in the Court. If he can't do that he
>should resign.

He's already done that.  How long should he keep it up?  His entire term?

>> Point four: If Justice Thomas goes on the attack against Anita Hill, how
>> would you respond? "Oh, he's trying to kick that poor, innocent soul
>> even more!" <<<Outpour of sympathy on the part of liberals and the news
>> media while the rest of the country wonders in amazement how trivial we
>> can all get about things now.>>>

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:14:55 GMT

note followup

William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes ...
>In article <1992Oct11.013535.24697@netcom.com>
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> Potential is irrelevent.  Actuality counts.  There is an enourmous
>> difference between what potential a person may have and what is
>> actually realized.  As an example, consider trying to spend much of
>> the $7 billion you can potentially earn (after all, Bill Gates did
>> it).
>
>But without this potential, you would never actually achieve what you
>do achieve. For example, some people are more inclined to work on autos
>than patients. This is many times a result of genetics -- what one
>person's "gifts" are may differ from another's -- and these "genetic"
>gifts are determined at conception.

Not quite true.

First, a person's genes are determined when a subset of the mother's
genes are selected for the ovum, when a subset of the father's genes
are selected for the sperm, when the mother & father select each
other, and when a specific sperm fertilizes the egg.  The genes are
merely finalized at conception.

Second, genes alone do not determine the person.  Environment plays an
enormous part (which is why you don't see many toddlers going to the
office every day and earning $3000/mo.)

Third, while true that a zygote/embryo has potential, so does each egg
and so does each sperm.  How much potential is needed to make up an
actual person?  And isn't that decision just as arbitrary (and a lot
harder to measure) than any other choice?

>That's why I am pro-life. I believe every individual -- born or unborn
>-- has the potential to make a positive impact on society, and should
>have the opportunity to do so (before AND after birth!) Unlike many
>pro-life individuals whose primary concern is in the womb, I also
>believe as much in getting kids out of the ghetto.

And what about the potential impact on society each egg has?  Do you
then propose mandatory fertilization?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: nadja@jetsun.weitek.COM (Nadja Adolf)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: WEITEK Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 21:04:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.170749.23176@unet.net.com> stank@perrault.unet.com (Stan Knight) writes:

>Before your baby is born try to use him/her as a tax deduction. Let us know
>how you make out. One more time---the pro-choice position has been and is
>that the woman has a choice to have an abortion if she desires BUT late term
>abortions should only be allowed unless to save the life of the mother. One 

Speak for yourself, white man. Some of us believe that the woman's health,
including mental health, are important. Others of us believe that in cases
of rape or incest, late abortions should be an option.


-- 
The Earth Pig Bourne....

nadja@node.com (prefered email address)
nadja@weitek.com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 15:18:11 GMT

In <23645@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM>, Marti Sheldon writes:

>>Most people have trouble believing Clinton (indeed, it's the cover story
>>of this week's Time Magazine) and Dan kept hammering the issue.  "Do you reall
>>trust Clinton to be President?"  I think most would answer "no".  And he and

>MOST PEOPLE keep saying "Yes." Every day. Haven't you been listening to
>the public opinion.  Polls, the man on the street, the voter's registration
>numbers.

>Most people are saying "No more Bush" "No more trickle down economics"
>"No more Republican lies."  You just aren't listening.

I hear "no more Bush" all the time.  I don't hear complaints about supply-side
(except from hard-core liberals) or about "Republican lies."  I hear more about
the Democrats' hypocrisy on so many issues--and I hear that more from Democrats
who dislike the special interest coalition that they feel their party has
become.

What do people think of Bill Clinton?  Think about it.  What is the common
response from Clinton supporters?  Do they say "Bill Clinton will be a great
president" or anything like that?  No.  People say "we need to get rid of
Bush."  The only reason Clinton's support is so strong is that he is a vote
against George Bush.  Bush is the reason why the so-called "Reagan Democrats"
are voting Democratic this year--not Clinton.

>CLINTON/GORE '92

MARROU/LORD '92


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*****************************************************************************
"Take a breath, Al.  Lighten up." -- Dan Quayle to Al Gore, 10/13/92
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER JOSEPH McCARTHY BUSH
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:16:56 GMT
Organization: LLNL


	Someone defended Joe McCarthy by saying that Communism is
*EVIL*.

	So what?

	Is his brand of red-baiting vindicated?

	It seems to me that this defense smacks of "the end justifies
the means" and "it is necessary to break eggs in order to break an
omelet", a moral principle beloved by V.I. Lenin.

	One can make a similar argument to vindicate Nazism, on the
ground that Nazis _hate_ Communists. Hitler's _Mein Kampf_ is riddled
with denunciations of Marxism, to give just one example.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7087 alt.activism.d:3761 talk.abortion:41948
From: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Keywords: child, fetus, offspring
Date: 11 Oct 92 05:07:57 GMT
Reply-To: stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce)
Followup-To: alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
Organization: Handmade Designs, Salem, OR, USA

In article <1992Oct8.004404.1947@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
|In <1061@bug.UUCP> stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) writes:
|>No it doesn't.  You're perfectly correct that some dictionaries (especially
|>abridged ones) don't explicitly include the words "unborn" or "fetus" in
|>the definition of "child" (although most do).  However those that don't,
|>like "American Heritage Dictionary", don't exclude the unborn in their
|>definition, i.e. that don't say "born offspring", they just say
|>"offspring".  Are you going to tell me that the fetus isn't an offspring
|>too?  He most certainly is.
|
|    Surely a fetus is offunspring? BTW, isn't it anazing how all the
|feti in RTL scenarios are always male? That wouldn't be significant
 ^^^^
|would it?

That's "fetuses".  First off, I'm making no point about abortion, but
rather the meaning of the word "child".  And, if you follow this thread
back (if you can), you will see that I've already said that I was using
"he" to mean he or she.  So in other words, no, it is not significant,
because the fetuses are not necessarily male (remember, in proper English
usage, "he" is the neuter form, including both male and female).
-- 
orstcs!opac!bug!stevef          I am the NRA              Steven R. Fordyce
uunet!sequent!ether!stevef         . . .  	        Deer are for Dinner
From: session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:46:49 GMT
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington

dash@skyy.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (O.P.P) writes:

>> There is absolutely no proof of [Flowers] charges whatsoever.
>       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    
>           NEWS FLASH!!!!  Even though I have no proof whatsoever,
>           (In my best B1 BOB voice) I think Bill Clinton dresses
>           in women's clothing when he goes home at night.
>           If Bill Clinton would just come clean on this subject,
>           then let the American people decide. Is this the kind
>           of man we want as Commander-in-Chief? I don't think so.

You place too high a standard for a mere President. Clinton's marital status
and whether or not he cheated on his wife in the past is totally irrelevant.
He and his wife together on live TV said that yes, their marriage had gone
through some rough times in the past, but everything has been forgiven and
the marriage is as strong as ever. Why bug them over such highly personal
issues? You or no one else has the right to pry into their lives to such
a personal level.

This crud is more evidence of the type of continual smokescreen put forth by
the RNC in order to take the interest off of the more important issues, like
the economy.
-- 
Zack Sessions
sessions@seq.uncwil.edu
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
"Good health is merely the slowest form of dying."
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 05:10:24 GMT

In article <BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) writes:
>Here's my blow-hard, simplistic, brutish (and therefore aptly suited to the
>alt.rush-limbaugh group) opinion on the abortion issue:
>
>The right of the woman to choose what to do with her body supercedes any rights
>the unborn parasite has to her body.
>
>There.  I have spoken.  This issue will never be resolved by consensus.  If
>people want to resolve it by majority-rule vote, that's fine.  I believe
>most of America is pro-choice.  My only regret is that as a male, I will
>most likely never have the opportunity to squash an Operation Rescue person
>trying to block my entry to an abortion clinic.

Especially if the Operation Rescue people carried the appropriate hardware.
Try to squash someone who is armed...

As the people depicted in my planned novel will be.   In my version of the
future, there's a scene where there are pro-choicers at an abortion clinic,
and the pro-lifers show u, and proceed to use truncheons.  The police
then show, and instead of arresting the pro-lifers, they join in with them
against the pro-choice people.  But then the PC crowd would have a fit....
From: snyder3338@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:Rush out of Job? Ha!
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:24:48 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

Get real Buddy...  Rush is going to thrive if 'Slick Willie' happens to get in. 
With all the destruction that will be going on, were going to need someone to
make us feel better.  I am sure there will be plenty to talk about and he can
even start on his next book - "See, I Told You So".  Sure to be another 
Number 1 Best Seller..

Jeff Snyder
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Ok, and there is a Down side to this?
Followup-To: soc.singles,alt.sex,talk.religion.misc
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:17:48 GMT

bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense) writes:

] There was recently a critical review [sic] done about Rush's book in
] the Washington Post. (within the last week, I think Thursday's Book
] Section) The critic comments on Rush's total lack of depth about anything,
] except maybe the title, which reveals Rush's complete inadequacy to
] accept reality and that the white male isn't lord-high-emporer over
] all he surveys. He further goes to support that with excerpts about
] Rush's own life and his statements thereof, which support a narrow-minded,
] uncompromising simpleton's view of a complex world.

ok, ok, ok....

so what is the down side?

ciao
drieux


ps: does anyone else Remember Andrew 'Dice Rules' WhatsHisName?
Played in Ford Fairlane.....

and those Other TeleVangelists for Our time....



-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
From: pkust@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Paul R Kust)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out (perhaps) pro-choice
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:23:27 GMT

In article <lefty-121092173359@lefty.apple.com> lefty@apple.com (Lefty) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.205224.20317@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>,
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) wrote:
>>
>> I thought I lived in America......
>
>You do.  It doesn't constitute an excuse to be a halfwit.
>
Current examples in the White House not withstanding
>--
>Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
>C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
-- 
*** Paul R. Kust "Banjoman" *** Kust.1@osu.edu / kust@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu
                                   | Bush might do better to promise, if re-
Jes' a-pickin' and a-grinnin'.     | elected, to appoint Jim Baker President.
Yes I play, I just don't play well.|            Clinton/Gore '92
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.flame
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Clinton Appeals to Hate
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 07:01:27 GMT

mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) blithers:
>How much information do you VOLUNTARILY give to the government to determine
>what you are willing to pay?  Do you VOLUNTARILY give the government your
>social security number as your tax payer ID?  Did you know that it is
>against the Social Security Act to use the SSN for identification purposes?
>You are NOT compelled to declare a single decuction.

Did you know that Congress (perhaps unfortunately) has continued to meet and
pass laws since the passage of the Social Security Act?  And did you know that
some of these laws have revised areas covered by the Social Security Act?

--Tim Smith
From: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The Limbaugh Poll
Keywords: A slight trend
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:35:55 GMT
Reply-To: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: flyboy.ebay.sun.com


Listening to Rush today, I noticed that he was taking a poll on who is lining
up for who for the election.
Well, the count was still under way but, his poll showed a 91% run for Bush, a
4% + for Willy, and a 4% + for the Parrot.

Amazing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Al Conte
From: bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Them Democratic handlers sure are smart!
Keywords: class envy Clinton Bush poverty "in touch"
Date: 9 Oct 92 05:16:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

>skywalke@dino.qci.bioch.bcm.tmc.edu (Timothy B. Reynolds) writes:
>
>
>=Bill Clinton now only makes 35,000 per year (source 10-8-92 USA today)
>=He seems very in touch with the average person to me. He has been
>=poor, no one will argue that. He worked and payed his own way through
>=school. When he finished law school he went back home to Ark to practice
>=instead of Wall St. 

His salary with perks included is closer to $100,000.  And he has
never worked outside the government---never worked for a private
company, let alone ran one like Bush.

And he has had a lifelong goal to be president.  He had no
chance of this going to Wall St., so he went back to his
home state to become a professional politician.
--
Dave Bakken                               Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu
Dept. of Computer Science; U of Arizona   Voice:    +1 602 621 4098      
Tucson, AZ 85721; USA                     FAX:      +1 602 621 4246
The fact that you're paranoid doesn't prove they're *not* out to get you.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 23:36:53 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14a by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <1992Oct15.220103.11184@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>Most of the users here would probably want me off the net,

Why do you keep saying that?  Has anyone asked you to leave?  Or are
you corresponding with a certain moronic propellor-head who told you
that "pro-aborts" would try to flame you off the net?

>since my views are offensive to all.

Most of what I've seen varies from laughable to pathetic.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: geoff@pmafire.inel.gov (Geoff Allen)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 19:48:18 GMT
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Subject: Re: Rush: Buffoon
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: Roller Coaster fanatic with no hope for a cure
Keywords: 

kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
>tem1@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Miller) writes:
>> 
>> By the way, has anyone ever asked Rush why he hasn't run for President?
>> :)
>
>He's having too much fun doing what he's doing now; and besides, more
>people listen to Rush Limbaugh than to the President. 

Not to mention the fact that Rush makes a bit more than the President,
I'd imagine.

:^)

Geoff

-- 
Geoff Allen          \ The main difference between me and the student
uunet!pmafire!geoff   \  is that I have simply made more mistakes.
geoff@pmafire.inel.gov \    --George Drennan on teaching photo workshops.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6819 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6439