HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
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 22:35:53 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Kristy Patterson) writes:
|> Jason John Seaver) writes:
|> >Steve Adams) writes:
|> >>
|> >>Not at all.  Assume that she is using effective birth control, and using it
|> >>properly.  She still gets pregnant.  Where did she agree to pregnancy?
|> >
|> >	It depends.  Is she responsible for her actions?  You don't do anything
|> >without possible consequences.  She should accept the consequences for her
|> >actions (to me, this sounds like a tough statement to disagree with.  However,
|> >I've been amazed before).
|> 
|> This strikes me as a weird way of phrasing the question.  If a woman gets
|> pregnant, she can't refuse to accept it; she has to do something about it
|> either way.  If by "she should accept the consequences for her actions"
|> you mean "she should be forced to carry the fetus to term," well, we don't
|> agree.  She does have a legal recourse, however much you may dislike it.
|> 
This line is taking a great turn, decide to move the forum of debate from
abortion to responsibility.  As Kristy points out, however, responsibility
cannot be avoided.  The disagreement is back to abortion, because the
question at issue is whether or not abortion is a responsible act.

Kristy and I think it is, Jason thinks not.

So we come back to the basic issue which hasn't changed in thousands of
years -- should a woman have a right to have a pregnancy terminated early.
In some forms of government (theocratic, autocratic, etc) this is indeed
a governmental decision.  In the US, this is a personal decision. 

But there is no way to change the mind of someone who's religion teaches 
them that abortion is murder and they must go out and get it stopped.
After all, what is religion for but to turn philosophical differences
into holy wars.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Religious rights and responsibilities
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 06:18:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.130030.11623@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>What is the "responsibility" associated with freedom of religion?

Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Section 3:

	... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to
	any office or public trust under the United States.

Constitution of the United States, Amendment I:

	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
	or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

Constitution of the United States, Amendment XIV, Section 1:

	... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
	privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
	any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
	due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
	the equal protection of the laws.


And to see how it is carried further by my state:

Constitution of California, Article I, Section 4:

	Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or
	preference are guaranteed.  This liberty of conscience does not
	excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace or
	safety of the State.  The Legislature shall make no law respecting
	an establishment of religion.

	A person is not incompetent to be a witness or juror because of his
	or her opinions on religious beliefs.

Constitution of California, Article I, Section 8:

	A person may not be disqualified from entering or pursuing a business,
	profession, vocation, or employment because of sex, race, creed,
	color, or national or ethnic origin.

-Pete Zakel
 (phz@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)

Think of it!  With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nordquist@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu
Subject: DIR
Organization: Washington State University
Distribution: world,usa,na,alt
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:12:09 -0800

In article <AWERLING.92Sep26174448@dante.nmsu.edu>, awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
> In article <w39nl+k.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
> 
> - Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show
> 
> - for Tuesday, September 22, 1992
> 
> - MORNING UPDATE
> 
> - In a second story, the LA Times reports that liberals are
> - opposing the LAPD's implement of President Bush's war on drugs.
> - The liberals fear that the programs will result in civil liberty
> - violations and the imprisonment of many minorities. So even
> - though the cities are full of hell holes that are related to the
> - drug trade, the police can't do anything about it because their
> - actions "might" lead to civil rights violations.
> 
> - Thus, the government is supposed to reward gangs for not killing
> - each other, but is also required to ignore the drug problem
> - because too many criminals who just happen to be minorities might
> - go to jail, maybe. "You see, government doesn't kill the human
> - spirit, folks," Rush states, "liberals do. But wait - maybe it's
> - the same thing?"
> 
> This is the same old typical Rush crap.  WHAT liberals?  WHO said
> that?  Does it come to this blowhard as an impossible concept that
> just MAYBE there are more than TWO points of view on any particular
> topic? 
> 
> His show is NOT a news program...it's an anti-"liberal" program.  His
> agenda has nothing to do with news.
> 
> --
> Andrew Werling on Planet Yip    awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@acca.nmsu.edu
> "Get out your cross and dance!"  --Gruntruck, "Crucifunkin'"

Now you are getting the idea.
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The truth about lies
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:52:38 GMT
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona

In article <1992Oct6.085947.1@ccsua.ctstateu.edu> 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.

How many years did Bush spend in Red Communist China?
From: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush in San Antone
Date: 5 Oct 92 15:44:19 GMT
Reply-To: zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Mark Gansle)


Could anyone in San Antonio please send me email with the TV and radio
times and stations of Rush's show?  I'm going to be down there the end
of this week and I'd like to catch the show.  Thanks!

+-------------------------+-------------------------+
|Cloud-gathering Zeus     |Think globally.          |
|                         |Act locally.             |
|zeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu  |Eat my shorts totally.   |
+-------------------------+-------------------------+

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: It's just a TV SHOW!
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:01:45 CDT


In article <adams.717435618@spssig>, adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> >In article <2006@celia.UUCP>, steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree) writes:
> >> 
> >>  Rush states that his show has a conservative agenda.
> >
> >Rush talks out of both sides of his mouth.  He'll say that the
> >show has a conservative agenda then turn around and say that 
> >it is objective and unbiased.  He'll say that he is refering to
> >only a few feminist and then turn around an flame feminist in
> >general.
> >
> >Rush talks out of both sides of his mouth so much he is starting
> >to sound like George Bush.
> >
> Except that I know that Rush's persona is conservative and pretty much can 
> guess where he stands on the issues...with El Presidente it's a whole 'nother
> ball game...

Bush repeatedly says he is a conservative.  Are you saying he's lying?
Sounds like a character issue to me...  :-)

>                maybe we should call Nancy's astrologer to tell us what
> George's positions are...

No, that was Reagan's schedule... :-)


-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gsh@iti.org (Greg Halbrook)
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:57:35 GMT

Randy Eugene Griffith <rg3c+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>So I'm looking through the list of 5000 some bb's one day, and I see
>netnews.alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...  And I think, "Great, more Rush
>Limbaugh fans!"  

>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?

>As far as I'm concerned, I think the fact that all you people listen to
>Rush seemingly religously, even though you obviously resent the man, is
>a testament to the simple truth of his words.

  (This would be a dull group if we all just sat around praising Rush, he does
   enough of that himself ;)

Rush is a great entertainer IMO.  However, he is just a man and every thing he 
says is not gospel.  As a fan, I sometimes fail to see the errors in his logic.
That's why this group can be so beneficial.  Even when I disagree with his
many critics here, which is often, at least I am hearing another point of view.
Rush himself admits he is biased.  His show is about him and his viewpoints.
I would much rather hear both sides of a story and make up my own mind than
to blindly follow one person and his viewpoints.  To blindly agree with Rush
on everything he says is no worse than blindly following Gloria Steinam (sp?)
or any one else.  In fact, it can be dangerous.  Remember Adolf Hitler?
--
					Greg.
From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Summary Wed 9/23/92
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:44:44 GMT
            <9z0nz=#.jrs@netcom.com>
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.

In article <9z0nz=#.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>
>Rush hasn't talked about Scully by name but he has given several reasons why 
>CEOs of large companies would like to see Clinton elected - his health 
>care plan would be cheaper for many since they would be able to let the 
>government take care of it for them by paying a 7% payroll tax. Their 
>employees get health care while the company's HR dept has one less major 
>headache, and probably several fewer employees.
>
>Also, since large companies offer many of the same benefits that Clinton 
>says he will mandate from business, small businesses will end up being 
>hurt the most. This helps the monolith corporations. I'm sure there are 
>other reasons, but I'm too lazy to look in the summaries.

Well, there you go again....

Large companies pay less for equivalent health care plans because they get
better deals from the health care providers due to the number of people
covered.  National health insurance would help most those small companies
who try to provide equivalent health benefits to large companies.  Imagine
a small company trying to start in a community dominated by one large
company.  The large company, wanting to hold labor costs down, does not
want the small company to succeed.  It can drive some hard bargains with
local health providers, forcing the providers to raise prices for everyone
else, especially the small competitor.  Of course the large company can
resort to other dirty tricks, this is just one of them.

Also, how can a small company be "hurt" if they are not providing health
care benefits in the first place?  The cost to the company is still the
same, zero.  The only way I can think of is the 7% tax lowers their
employees' salaries, while the companies who provide health care would be
able to raise their employees' salaries because of the lower health care
costs.  Is this a bad thing?  After all, the small company could then compete
on a salary basis alone, instead of health care providing some hard to
quantify additional value.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6220 alt.rush-limbaugh:6398
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:05:14 -0400 
From: Randy Eugene Griffith <rg3c+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Did I miss something?

So I'm looking through the list of 5000 some bb's one day, and I see
netnews.alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...  And I think, "Great, more Rush
Limbaugh fans!"  

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?

As far as I'm concerned, I think the fact that all you people listen to
Rush seemingly religously, even though you obviously resent the man, is
a testament to the simple truth of his words.

-- Randy "The Apeman" Griffith
"You gonna be the new worm face now"
From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Murphy Brown
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:25:35 GMT
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.

In article <1992Sep25.205819.17814@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@red-dragon.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.115000.17129@uswmrg.mrg.uswest.com.mrg.uswest.com>, greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt) writes:
>
>	I wouldn't really expect Rush to understand babies, he never
>stays married long enough to have one.
>
  What the hell does this mean. Alex, are you a baby expert because
you have a baby. Does that also mean you're an expert on child
sexual abuse also?
The arguement goes both ways.
>|> He ranted for a good 10 minutes or so about how "Murphy" didn't know how
>|> to hold a baby, and that this pointed up how feminists like her "don't
>
>	I remember teaching my wife how to hold our kid when he was about
>a week old, it was a lot like the show (I got the kid for the first week
 Your polictically correct. Did you show her how to shake the formula
on your wrist to check for overheating, or were you more p.c. when
you sucked on her breast to demonstrate what the baby does so as
not to frighten her? 
All kidding aside. Big friggen deal.

>while she recovered). I did have a problem with Murphy going up and down 
>the stairs so easily 3 days after the kid was born, though. All in all, I 
>thought that the baby care stuff was pretty detailed.
>
>	The Barry Manilow scene was choice, though. At one point, my kid
>would only relax if we played James Taylor really loud. I hate James Taylor.
>
 My kids listen to Charlie Parker. 
>-- 
>                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
>  "[Ronald Reagans] support of George Bush is absolutely not as lukewarm
>  and halfhearted as it appears"  -- Ed Meese 1992


Wood
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner)
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 13:13:37 GMT


You want real change? HUH?

Vote for George Bush.

Not only that, vote the Liberal Democrats OUT!
 Tell Tom Foley to go suck
on a gas pipe.

Tell Albert Bustamante to eat some toxic waste!!!!

And tell 'ol Al Gore to go blow himself!!

These are my own opinions. 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: kkrueger@cwis.unomaha.edu (Kurt Krueger)
Subject: Re: "Liberals" and the Drug War
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: world,usa,na,alt
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:05:20 GMT

awerling@nmsu.edu  writes:
> In article <w39nl+k.jrs@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
> 
> - Unofficial Summary of the Rush Limbaugh Show
> 
> - for Tuesday, September 22, 1992

[stuff deleted]

> - Thus, the government is supposed to reward gangs for not killing
> - each other, but is also required to ignore the drug problem
> - because too many criminals who just happen to be minorities might
> - go to jail, maybe. "You see, government doesn't kill the human
> - spirit, folks," Rush states, "liberals do. But wait - maybe it's
> - the same thing?"
> 
> This is the same old typical Rush crap.  WHAT liberals?  WHO said
> that?  Does it come to this blowhard as an impossible concept that
> just MAYBE there are more than TWO points of view on any particular
> topic? 
> 
> His show is NOT a news program...it's an anti-"liberal" program.  His
> agenda has nothing to do with news.

Rush Limbaugh has never said his agenda is news, and he has repeatedly said
he is not a member of the media.  Furthermore, his show is an anti-liberal
program, but so what?  I can probably name twenty non-news, anti-conserva-
tive programs.  Nonetheless, it is well agreed upon that liberals generally
oppose the war on drugs because of civil rights violations, mainly against
minorities.  The WHO isn't the issue here, but the liberal MOVEMENT is.
Granted, not ALL liberals think the war on drugs is bad, but the movement
sure does.  If you disallow generalizations, then you cannot even say that
such a thing as "liberal" and "conservative" exist.  Clearly these philoso-
phies based on generalizations are real, though they may not apply to all.

Kurt R. Krueger
kkrueger@unomaha.edu

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Bob Dornan on Bill Clinton - IMPORTANT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:40:26 GMT

In article <BvnuG9.M5o@hpuerca.atl.hp.com> mhr@hpuerca.atl.hp.com (Mike Reaser) writes:
>In <Oct.4.01.04.33.1992.21162@andromeda.rutgers.edu> detrolio@andromeda.rutgers.edu (David De Trolio) writes:
>
>Let's see ...
>
>When challenged, Dornan can produce __NO__ proof for any of his
>allegations.

Uh, the Portis biography plus the admission of the Clinton campaign (Dee Dee
Meyers) seem to be pretty good evidence. 

>Dornan appears on C-SPAN, speaking to an empty House chamber.

This is a common practice, designed to get the remarks into the Congressional
Record. If you don't like it, then get the Democratic majority to change their
policies.

-- 
John Switzer               | 50 years from now, nobody will
                           | remember Candice Bergen or Murphy
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Brown, but every school kid will
jrs@netcom.com             | be taught about President Quayle.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:51:32 GMT

Erik Karl Witte <ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> THINK NEXT TIME!

Indeed!

> Chris A. Lyman wrote (in an argument presumably based on logic unlike
> the previous one):
>>  Question for you, Erik: what do you suppose made this woman desperate
>>  enough to risk her life to not be pregnant?

> That is missing the point.

That is evading the question.  Try again?

> If she really could not afford (not monetarily speaking) to become
> pregnant, she shouldn't have risked pregnancy by having sex.

I wasn't aware that death was an appropriate consequence for having sex.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
           "Remember! Arguments should be FUN!" -- Jessica McGeary

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Re : Rush Words
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:09:26 GMT

In article <EeoSBQO00WB8Jp1W0x@andrew.cmu.edu> "Jeffrey T. Strnad" <js1j+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>check rush's book.."The Way Things Ought To Be"...for the chapter entitled
>"The Limbaugh Lexicon"...
>               it includes gems on such topics as Governor Coomo, as well as
>the standard Feminazis and Evironmentalist Wackos...
>
This chapter is subtitled "How to Speak Rushian."

-- 
John Switzer               | 50 years from now, nobody will
                           | remember Candice Bergen or Murphy
74076.1250@Compuserve.com  | Brown, but every school kid will
jrs@netcom.com             | be taught about President Quayle.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 00:21:38 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Liberal Havens...
 <92272.192542KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <1alblvINNlb3@network.ucsd.edu>
 <1992Oct4.044048.10682@afterlife.ncsc.mil>

In article <1992Oct4.044048.10682@afterlife.ncsc.mil>,
acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) says:

>>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.

>You know, it seems that there's this idea among conservatives that
>_evrything_ is some sort of liberal plot.

No, no, no, I don't think it's a conspiracy.  I don't think there are
1,000 liberals consulting with each other over E-Mail, or anything like
that.  I'm just stating a fact, that the net is made up of mostly people
with liberal tendencies (to put it lightly).

Maybe it's just that a higher percentage of conservatives have a life than
liberals... :-)

>First, it was the news media. Then, Hollywood. The obsessive dittoheads
>have managed to convince themselves that the publishing industry is
>somehow trying to hide Limbaugh's book from the public.

I don't think Rush ever claimed there was a full-blown conspiracy.  And, he
has tried to ease the minds of those who actually think there is a conspir-
acy to keep his book under wraps, reminding them that "liberals like money
just as much as conservatives; they just PRETEND they don't."

>Now, the net is a liberal haven.

>Geez, you people are worse then the Kennedy assassination conspiracy
>theorists.

What theories?  We all know the Beatles were behind it! :)

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:47:13 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: It's just some NETWORK NAZIS!
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, <JFL4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

> In article <1992Sep22.145142.12511@csus.edu>, chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen
> A Chaney) says:
> >
> >Then, turn on the Rush Limbaugh show and listen to someone who DOES
> >exist and whose book is THE FASTEST SELLING NONFICTION BOOK IN
> >H I S T O R Y.
> >
> 
> Is this some kind of indicator of value?  _Mein Kampf_ was the fastest
> selling nonfiction book in h i s t o r y in Germany but that doesn't
> necessarily mean I'd recommend it.  Of course, Nazis would....

Yes, controversy will attract attention.  Hell, even I would consider
buying and reading the book, and I consider limbaugh to be
nothing more than a pandering, pedantic, self-congratulatory, 
demagogue (with a little bit of a sense of humor).


doug
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh