HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:37:33 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Originator: news@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu

In article <YOUNG.92Oct15132929@ssdd475a.erim.org> young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.214550.14858@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:
>
>>   When we were *told* she told friends. Listen, only a handful of people
>>   claim that they were told.
>
>If she were concerned for her job, and felt that she couldn't go
>public, yet was driven to tell someone, it is entirely consistent that
>only a handful of people (most folks would probably only tell one best
>friend) were told.

If she made it up, it would make sense for her to get someone to say that
she mentioned it a decade ago.

Listen, my whole point is that only Hill, Thomas and God know what happened.
Regardless of what others may tell you, there were no eyewitnesses -- nobody
*saw* anything.

>>   If Anita Hill had brought her claims to a Grand Jury today or 10 years
>>   ago, it would never have seen trial. Her word against his. Innocent
>>   until PROVEN (*not alleged) guilty is still the docturing in the USA.
>
>You mean all those folks under indictment by grand juries never should
>have been indicted, since they are by docturing [sic] innocent?  Why
>do we bother with grand juries, then?

Peter, please don't make fun of my typos. Only make fun of my positions.

Please re-read that section you quoted. If you still don't understand,
read on:

FOR THE INTELLECTUALLY IMPAIRED: I asserted that, IMHO, if the charges had
ever been brought before a Grand Jury, it would never have gotten to court,
because the evidence simply isn't there. Peter equated that with some
preposterous assertion that all Grand Jury indictments were wrong.

Go figure.

						- greg
From: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Proof of a Liberal Media Conspiricy
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:19:42 GMT
Reply-To: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: flyboy.ebay.sun.com

>I think that it's possible that Mr. Conte is a paranoid fool, but I would
>not go so far as to assert that he is without furthur evidance. If, for
>example, several Rush fans were to testify that Mr. Conte is not
>representitive of Rush fans in general, I would accept that as sufficent
>proof. Otherwise, I can only conclude that Rush fans in general belive in
>The Liberal Media Conspiricy as it is described here.

Now you've done it Alex Crain.
You have suceeded in blowing my cover.
This will have dire consequences in the future polls.

PS. Your Rush Limbaugh bumper stickers are being shipped to you today.

Al Conte
From: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Presidential Leadership
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:46:40 GMT
Reply-To: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: flyboy.ebay.sun.com

>I hear over and over and over Republicans blaming Congress for our
>nations decline.  Yet the only leader that works for all Americans is
>the President.  Inner-city problems, economic problems, the decline of
>our manufacturing base, ect.  are national problems requiring national
>leadership.  It's pathetic and cowardly how Republicans blame
>congress, cite "character issues", scare people into thinking that
>they are going to be taxed to death, and generally avoid real
>problems.  I've heard enough from Republicans who supported George
>Bush and his senile predecessor.  And if you still do you're a loser.

You know, I am amazed at the mindset of some of these liberal /Democrat
types.
You come off saying this and that, without even knowing what has transpired
in the last few years of "DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED CONGRESS".
The president can't spend a red cent.
If the president had line item veto, things would be vastly different in this 
country.  Even his Slickness, Mr. Willy wants line item veto but, his party does
not.
Lets look at what we have here.
The Republican party wants line item veto, the Democrats do not.
Have you ever seen a bill in it's attempt to be passed.
There is all sorts of garbage attached to it that has nothing to do with
the betterment of our society. Good bills that could have made an impact on
the betterment of the US. have gone down in flames because of these "little add 
ons" that are injected into almost every bill that comes along.
There is not one constructive reason in the world that the Demos can hang their
hat on as to why they do not wnat line item veto.
I'm betting that you are intellegent enough to see what is going on.
You better check your findings a little more clearly before you unload more
of this typical liberal "I'll hold my breath if I don't get what I want" attitude.
You go ahead and vote demo this year.  You will see in a ffew weeks that the congress
which is demo controlled will be cleaned out. You know it will, the rest of the
Demos know it will.
You will then see the president, (Bush) along with a Republican congress execute
bills tht will help everyone, even liberal demos, they just refuse to see it.
The real losers will be the people who succumb to the "Class envy" doctrine
that the Demos are feeding to the masses.
The Demos are the ones destroying this country, not the president.
You are blind to the truth, and refuse to open YOUR eyes.
That my friend, is a bad state to be in, certainly not a winner, maybe a whiner!


Al Conte

		" Liberal - a mass of people attempting to share a brain "
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: csmith@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: When does a fetus become human?
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:46:37 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:

>Vagueness isn't your problem.  Your desire to hold an extremest
>position that leaves no room for people to be people is your problem.
>So far I have not met anyone who is perfect, but you expect people
>to be perfect or pay.  Hopefully the courts and the law will continue
>to help you keep your problem to yourself.

If you truly believed that, then you hopefully also believe that most
tort awards should be limited, since most liability suits result not
from deliberate malice, but simply oversight.  Are you saying that
individuals are allowed to err in matters of their own bodies but
businesses are not allowed to err whatsoever?

Admittedly, you have not mentioned your views in regard to liability
lawsuits--I was merely using the generally held view of most liberals,
that being individuals have rights over and above that of society in
general.  I disagree.  Almost all law is an attempt to curb individual
liberty for the sake of society as a whole.

Abortion, therefore, should only remain unregulated (i.e. on demand) if
it is clear that no one else is effected.  This is not so.  Abortion on
demand violates the potential father's right to due process.  It is also
possibly a violation of the rights of the fetus.  There is nothing about
the moment of birth that clearly deliniates human from non-human.

Let me put forth an scenario and get your reation to it.  A woman is giving
birth. After the child is removed from the womb, but BEFORE the umbilical
is cut, the father crushes the fetus' skull. The fetus dies.

Is he guilty of murder, violating the rights of the mother, or what?

Any takers?

--
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
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 21:09:41 GMT

In <98654@bu.edu>:

>Any unbiased observer would conclude that Quayle won the debate last night.
>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 really
>trust Clinton to be President?"  I think most would answer "no".  And he and
>the Admiral had Gore running away from his book on the environment (supposedly
>his strong point), making him look like an extremist.  yeah, he exaggerated
>with the facts, but so did Gore.  Gore looked so stiff.  How many times did
>you hear "Bill Clinton and I think ...." at the beginning of a sentence?

And today, Gore is complaining about the Bush Administration's purported
investigation's of CLinton's activities.  No doubt that they approved of the
search for dirt on Clarence Thomas.

I do think that Quayle was more effective than people thought he would be.
Also, I think he over-used the term "pulling a Clinton."  Quayle can babble at
times, but his attacks on Clinton were usually well-focused.  Looking back, I
think that Quayle had little to lose anyway.  The media have made him look like
an absolute boob who can't do *anything* right.  Anything better than an
absolute zero performance would help him.  And the people could see it before
the media could put a spin on it.

>This is NOT to say that Quayle is a good VP or that Bush is a good president.
>But reading the papers today, you have to believe that either 1) they watched
>a different debate, or 2) they are biased.  I mean, it wasn't even close.

Point well taken.  I think that Gore was polished...TOO polished.  He looked
like a machine with his answers.  Every response seemed TOO well rehearsed.
And I thought it was funny that Stockdale, who looked clearly out of his
league, caught Gore with the book reference.  Gore did back away from his
positions in the book.  Stockdale didn't exactly read from the book verbatim,
but his points were in Gore's book.  If the goal in defeating the Clinton/Gore
ticket is to show that they are more liberal than they claim, then Gore's
book is certainly a good place for them to start.


Tim Irvin  j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*****************************************************************************
"Take a breath, Al.  Lighten up." -- Dan Quayle

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7012 alt.activism.d:3714 alt.politics.elections:15941 alt.politics.bush:8491 alt.politics.clinton:9493 talk.politics.misc:50665 talk.abortion:41749
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out (perhaps) pro-choice
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:07:16 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

David Budd) writes:

|> In his response, Mr. Polen sayst that his problem with the other gentleman
|> is not his vagueness. his "desire to hold an extremest {sic} position" 
|> apparently is the problem. 
|> Not that I agree with the pro-lifers, but I must say that it is a litle strange
|> to see this type of a reaction from one who claims to have an open mind.
|> {As Groucho Marx said, there sits a man with an open mind, I can feel the
|> breeze all the way over here.}

I don't remember claiming to have an open mind on all issues.  I certainly
do not have an open mind on the issue of Choice.  We have been through
a case where my wife found she became pregnant while she had an IUD,
and there was medical concern the child would be badly deformed.  We
made our choice.

The only position I have taken is that I won't force others to have
abortions, and I don't want them to prevent my wife from haveing one
if she chooses.

When Simon says that he views abortions as wrong, and therefore everyone
should stop, he is taking an extremist postion.  I don't expect him
to become a believer in abortions.  Frankly, I don't care what he
believes.  I only care about what he tells me I can and cannot do.
|> 
|> Was not Martin Luther King's position in the 1960's *extremist*? yet, I and
|> most other "right" thinking Americans have no problem with his beliefs.
|> 
|> To the deconstructionists, I am NOT equating MLK with pro-lifers, I am simply 
|> making an analogy.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7570 alt.activism.d:3910 alt.politics.elections:17189
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:18:46 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio

In article <1992Oct15.135432.2895@nic.csu.net> jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.075320.16290@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct3.030602.952@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (
>Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>>I have one solution, and I'll get nuclear flamed for it, but what is
>>>wrong with abstinence as a means to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
>
>>	So one must never have sex unless one wants to produce
>>children?
>
>>	Baloney.
>No, just what it says.  One method of avoiding unwanted pregnancies is to
>abstain.  It's the ONLY 100% effective method.
>Jennifer
>******************************************************************************
>Yet another college age Republican, Disney and Tiny Toons fan, Rush Limbaugh
>fan, Aussiephile, Bible-believing, PS-2 owning, Computer Science major!
>Whew!  I think I got 'em all.  So sue me for having wholesome family values.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>You know you've been on the Usenet a long time when they've cancelled one
>of your newsgroups!
>******************************************************************************
Thanks you!! Someone else agrees with me.  And I like that .sig!!!
Check out the stuff on Clinton I posted in alt.rush.limbaugh!   Simon
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6710 alt.activism.d:3590 alt.politics.elections:15421 alt.politics.bush:7987 alt.politics.clinton:8812 talk.politics.misc:49935 talk.abortion:41049
From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 7 Oct 92 14:09:51 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle) writes:

>> There is no third alternative yet.
>> Come up with one and we'll discuss it.

>How about ABSTINENCE? (No, I forgot, that's a dirty word around
>here!...)

Not a dirty word, just inapplicapable.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 15:49:01 GMT

In <1992Oct12.014753.15173@s1.gov>, Loren I. Petrich writes:

> (several lines deleted)

>   What's wrong with a woman liking sex? Are women supposed to
>simply lie back and think of their homelands? Is the enjoyment of sex
>supposed to be a male monopoly?

Is the enjoyment of sex a male monopoly?
According to people like Catherine "All Sex is Rape" MacKinnon, yes.


Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
*****************************************************************************
FLASH!  Card-carrying Libertarian attempts to solve problems realistically.
        Film at 11.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6903 talk.abortion:41453
From: William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:09:41 GMT
 <1992Oct2.185046.24334@unet.net.com> 
 <1992Oct2.222202.14755@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>  
 <BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) writes:

> The right of the woman to choose what to do with her body supercedes any 
> rights the unborn parasite has to her body.

Maybe it's me, but when a baby (or a baby-to-be, whatever you'd like to
call it!) becomes a PARASITE, I think there's a MAJOR problem with our
society.

Or maybe it's just me.

---------------------------------------------
William Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH.

"Abortion is advocated only by persons that have themselves been born."
-- Ronald Reagan
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Georgia State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:40:16 GMT

In <BvrJI4.Is1@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green) writes:

>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. 

Sure you can.  Volunteer to be an escort.  As long as there are
OR folks around blocking clinics, escorts will be needed.

>Shawn Green


-- 

Lori Kent Rothman
usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

a computer is nothing but an autistic savant...
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,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
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:58:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.192018.21827@advtech.uswest.com> steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak) writes:
>> = (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>>Perhaps I am the challenger here, but there must be others that feel the same
>>way I do.   I cannot accept that I am the only person who belives that the
>>unborn have a right to live.
>
>Simon, old chap - you're most puzzling, and getting irritating.

I never thought a debate was a bad thing.  >
>Besides not being able include the post you're responding to,
>additionally you can't READ any posts on t.a.?  I mean, page just
>through ten _articles_ and you pretty much cover the spectrum of
>viewpoints.
>
>(What is the nature of your net access?  I really don't get it.)
>
I am heading over to t.a. shortly.

Now if am getting irritating, please contact the appropriate admin people about
revoking my access.
If so requested, I can personally have my access deleted here.

Simon

>
>--
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"|
>+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>steven@advtech.USWest.Com


Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7210 alt.activism.d:3811 alt.politics.elections:16385 alt.politics.bush:8827 alt.politics.clinton:9995 talk.politics.misc:51279 talk.abortion:42189
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out (perhaps) pro-choice
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:36:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

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.

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6863 alt.activism.d:3644 alt.politics.elections:15630 alt.politics.bush:8185 alt.politics.clinton:9077 talk.politics.misc:50298 talk.abortion:41362
From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:55:28 GMT
Organization: Netcom San Jose

sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>Perhaps I am the challenger here, but there must be others that feel the same
>way I do.   I cannot accept that I am the only person who belives that the
>unborn have a right to live.

Oh you aren't, by any means.  You can't even assume that a person
disagrees with you on that poin (only they may on others).

Now then, what does an unborn right to life entail?  What do you mean
when you say the unborn have a right to live?

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:15:19 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <1992Oct12.043734.5462@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
>	[My apologies to the people who still think that Bush has a chance]

Thanks.

>	This election is the juxposition of two major events for
>Republicans.  The first is the massive failure in their bid for the
>white house. Not only is Bush going to lose, he's not losing in
>the wake of a major catastrophy or scandle, but rather on his own
>merits. (Call this premature if you like, but unless Clinton is found
>screwing a sheep, the writings on the wall, folks)

Some claim he's screwed everything but sheep :)

>	The other major event is the rise of Limbaugh, Buchannan and
>their ilk within the party. No one can prove that the reason that
>people arn't voting republican is because of the choices of Convention
>speakers this year, but there does seem to be a correlation between
>Republicans who might win and Republicans who have stayed as far away
>from the GOP convention, Family Values, and the rest of the far right
>rhetoric as they could.

I disagree that the convention is the reason that people are not supporting
Bush.  I think it is much more likely that the people do not think that
Bush has a driving domestic agenda likey the think Clinton does.  This 
aimless approach by Bush does not foster the "confidence in our leader"
feeling that people want today in light of the shakey economics I keep
hearing about on ABC's World News Tonight.

Besides, you're the guy who claims that the American Voter is an idiot.
How can you now claim that they've reasoned it out and have seen the
light?  Surely if they could reason at all they would have long ago 
realized that taxes aren't high enough and that we need to increase
the size of the government.  

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle