HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: re:HYPOCRISY!!!
From: cnordstr@gacvx1.gac.edu
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:43:49 -0600
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota
Nntp-Posting-User: cnordstr

In article <168B9D70B.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU>, VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
> In article <1992Dec10.192800.13725@csus.edu>
> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>  
>>Senator Bob Packwood (R-Oregon) just left Alcohol Rehab!
>>
>>Guess what!
>>
>>Those who want to see him recalled, are being accused of HAVING A
>>POLITICAL AGENDA !!
>>
>>
>>                AS IF TRYING TO GET RID OF CLARENCE THOMAS
>>                   BECAUSE OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT CHARGES
>>                  WAS NOT BASED ON A POLITICAL AGENDA !!
>  
> I didn't say it wasn't.
>  
>  
>>You fucking liberals are so damned HYPOCRITICAL it has me rolling on the
>>floor laughing!
>  
> Congratulations on your state of euphorium!
>  
>  
>>You two-faced pack of lying hypocritical shitbags got
>>caught red-handed in Oregon this time!
>  
> Yes, yes, yes.  I love it when you call me a shitbag.  Oh, BTW, I didn't
> get caught red-handed.  Please call me a shitbag again you macho
> stud you.
>  
>  
>>Liberals are so outlandishly hypocritical! YOU wanted Clarence Thomas
>>thrown out of the Supreme Court hearings because of sexual harassment
>>charges, yet WHEN WE APPLY THE SAME STANDARDS TO ONE OF YOUR LIBERAL
>>PEOPLE IN THE GOVERNMENT...
>  
> Well, I never wanted him to be nominated in the first place.  He is
> the weakest excuse for a Sumpreme Court judge.  It is the
> hypocritical George Bush that said he would not appoint a judge on the
> basis of race who ought to be chastised for picking such an inadequate
> nominee.  But we have our token black on the Sumpreme Court so again
> everyone can feel good about themselves.  Racial equality will never
> be achieved in this manner.
I agree that racial equality will never be achieved by quota, but we all know
what wouldv'e happened had George Bush NOT chosen a black man/woman to replace
Thurgood Marshal: he would've been branded a racist forever, and liberals would
again take up the battle cry of "Republican racism strikes again!". The
hypocrisy on the left recently HAS been blatant. Two examples (other than
Thomas/Hill) are:
1)  The rape charges against William Kennedy Smith. Why didn't we here outrage
from the feminist camp on this one? Answer: WKS's uncle Ted might've been
damaged, and we all know how he stands up for the rights of women (just ask
Mary Joe Kopekne).
2)  The sexual harassment charges against Senator Inoway (D-Hawii). Again, why
no demand from the NOW gang for justice? Same reason as above.
The liberal media and the Democrat-controlled congress are hypocrits.
'Nuff said.
 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Um, err... I *know* I saw it here a few days ago...
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 04:18:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.010456.8303@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
><1992Dec8.014711.15872@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) :
>>In article <168B07517.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU> VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
>...
>>Kneel to Al Gore. We SALUTE to Rush Limbaugh.
>
>Is that salute done with palm facing outward, hand opened, sides of
>fingers touching, arm thrust forward and upward followed by heels clicking
>together?  Ah yes, I thought so.
>
No, I think it's like this Gordon...
Flex arm so that hand is level with shoulder. Turn palm towards
yourself. Extend the middle finger.

>...
>>All in all, #Limbaugh is becoming a very entertaining channel. Cmon in -
>>yes, even you, Patrick Humphrey. Definitely, we'd like to see you -
>>bring marinade sauce, a plate and utensils, though - I'd hate to gnaw
>>you to the bone with my bare hands in such a refined place. :) 
>
>"CHANEY OFFERS TO EAT HUMPHREY - Film at 11:00"
>
Can they show things like that on TV where you are???
Around here, you have to rent movies to see things like that....

--
                  Mark Cochran          merlin@eddie.ee.vt.edu
These are the views of my employer. They also represent the views of
your employer, your government, the Church of your choice, and the
Ghost of Elvis. So there.
From: fpittl@infopls.chi.il.us (Frank Pittel)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Ca
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 20:57:14 CST
X-Maildoor: WaflineMail 1.00r

HB>In article <1992Nov23.224329.13768@cis.ohio-state.edu> lassiter@catnip.cis.o
HB>state.edu (douglas scott lassiter) writes:
HB>>
HB>> I think the same discomfort, if not a more unfair
HB>> one would accompany hetrosexual males being forced to take showers
HB>> with homosexual men.

HB>    As has been stated previously ad nauseum, they're already taking
HB>showers with gay men.  Lots of them.  They just don't know it, because the
HB>gay folks are discreet.  There is no reason to think that their discretion
HB>will suddenly disappear when the discrimination is signed away by Clinton.

I think the operative word there is that "they just don't know it".

An applicable analogy is: there is a woman's shower room with a hole .
The other side of the hole is in the floor of a men's locker room. Men
there notice the hole and spend their time watching the women taking
showers. After about six monthes the hole is discovered by the women and
they ask to have the hole fixed. At that time the men who were watching
complained saying "whats the problem we've been watching for six
monthes and nobody ever had a problem." and demanded that the hole
remain.
---
 * SLMR 2.0 * 
                                                                                                        
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.forum
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 16 Dec 92 13:08:35 CST


In article <mjenkins.724448799@cunews>, mjenkins@alfred.carleton.ca (Michael Jenkinson) writes:
> In <1992Dec15.125619.8891@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> 
> >> I would like to formally propose a new group, alt.conservative.forum, 
> >> a moderated group to discuss conservative values and assorted political
> >> goings-on from a distinctly right-wing standpoint.
> 
> >"moterated", as in only politically correct conservative doctrine allowed?
> 
> Politically correct conservative doctrine? Now *that's* an oxymoron if
> I've ever heard one.

"fetus" is politically incorrect conservative doctrine, while "unborn baby"
is politically correct.

"Civil Rights Bill" is politically incorrect conservative doctrine, "quota
bill" is politically correct.

> I thought conservatives were as far from political correctness as you
> could get.

How 'bout the conservative speech code on the college campus?  At the
University of St. Thomas, not only is a "pro-choice" group not allowed
on campus (to balance the "pro-life" group), but pro-choice literature
is not allowed and pro-choice speakers are not allowed (even durring
"pro-life" week).  The school has even supported school security guard's
harrasment of students writing pro-choice slogans with chalk on sidewalks
even thought there is no school policy against writing with chalk on
sidewalks.

Conservatives only get excited about school speech codes when it restricts
speech they aprove of (like yelling racial slurs at Brown).

-- 
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: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Disclaimers on TV show
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:37:23 GMT

bparrish@rose.hp.com (Bill Parrish) writes:
>I'm curious... in Sacramento the Rush Limbaugh TV program is preceeded by
>a disclaimer... something to the effect that "The Views expressed on the
>Rush Limbaugh program do not necessarily reflect those of the staff and
>management of KCRA Channel 3, or its sponsors... etc".  I'm curious if this
>is done in other parts of the country.  

I've just recently started watching - I haven't seen that here in San
Diego, Channel 10.  It seems pretty stupid - they don't have similar
disclaimers before Donahue or Oprah, do they?  Or even the evening
news with Dan Rather.  Then again, Sacramento is Sacramento, with its
political climate.  It's probably just to protect themselves.


>It's interesting... when the program FIRST came on in Sacramento, the 
>word "necessarily" was omitted, and was added after about a week or so.

Well it's pretty presumptuous to say that the views on this show do
NOT represent the views of the management, staff, sponsors... it's
quite unlikely that nobody in any way associated with the show locally
agrees with anything said on it.


>I wonder if that implies that the views expressed on other shows DO
>reflect the views of the staff,  management, sponsors, or whatever...

Heh, maybe you could take them to task for something said on, say,
Hard Copy or Geraldo, noting that they don't have the disclaimer.  It
would make sense that they would have it on every show - but it's
probably because RL is probably the only overtly conservative show
they carry.
-- 
I will defend to the death everyone's right to my opinion
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (Bakayaroo Banzai)
Subject: Re: The Religious Right (was: Somalia
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 07:57:24 GMT

In article <168BE804A.VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU> VAAIRP@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.062920.25179@microunity.com>
>jeff@MicroUnity.com (Jeff 'Giga-hurts' Kaskey) writes:
> 
[.....]
>Oh well, let's hear from the more conservative Xtians.
> 
Even conservative Christians know flame-bait when they see it...

*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:17:34 GMT


In a previous article, KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) says:

>In article <22580003@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>, tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony
>Zugates) says:
>
>>[blah blah blah]
>>Certainly please don't think that I'm knocking the man....after all
>>he is getting rich being a bigot...and I still have to work for a
>>living.
>
>You know, I never get tired of these idiots who never listen to Rush coming
>in and making their stupid little ad hominem attacks on him.
>
>>It just aint fair... Maybe next Christmas I can think of a way to
>>get rich off of the bigotry phenomenon too....hmmm KuKluxKlan turtles?
>
>Go away, little man.   I'm bigotted against anyone who posts crap like yours.

Hey, asshole...I listen to Flush Limbowel almost daily (at least 4 times a 
week), and I have the same opinion of him.

>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
> -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
> kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
                           Trick joke...answer: Conservatives like Limbowel.


                
-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   HATE IS NOT A  *         
*                    Kelley L. Miller  / /  \  FAMILY VALUE   *            
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  / /____\                *  
*     GIGO: Gospel In--Garbage Out   /______\                 *
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10222 talk.abortion:52058
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion will never be criminalized. (WAS rights and responsibilities)
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:54:00 GMT
Organization: Vanderbilt University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Corrected text. please ignore previous reply


In article <15DEC199213572359@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>, mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell) writes...
>> 
>>Doesn't this belong in alt.conspiracy? This line of thinking is for people 
>>that are too shallow to believe that other points of view exist.
>> 
>No, it doesn't.  alt.conspiracy is an area you would avoid, and I'm talking 
>to you.  I'm not sure how you have decided that I'm 'too shallow to believe 
>that other points of view exist,' maybe that's a topic for another day.  
>But don't continue to get me wrong, I don't claim for a moment that the 
>thousands of pro-choice people aren't pro-choice (although I have my own ideas 
>about why, and they *aren't* conspiratorial), I know they are.  But they're 
>just playing out their role in the whole tableau.  It's not them I'm 
>accusing, it's the leadership.  See?
> 
>+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
>| Elliott Mitchell
>|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
>|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
>|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper)
Subject: Re: New group proposal: alt.conservative.forum
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 18:41:02 GMT

In article <1gq58lINNlce@meaddata.meaddata.com> johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.230952.7452@u.washington.edu>, scythe@hardy.u.washington.edu (The Grim Reaper) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec16.131326.4169@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>|> >
>|> >In article <BzBL42.4wC@unix.amherst.edu>, twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>|> >> In article <92350.145137KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>|> >> 
>|> >> >Why do we need a moderated group?  There are intelligent liberals here, who
>|> >> >help stimulate thought.  The stupid ones are easy to ignore (or flame, which-
>|> >> >ever is your preference. :)
>|> >> 
>|> >> It still creates noise.  If we can have a moderated soc.feminism
>|> >> group, we can have a moderated group for conservatism.
>|> >> 
>|> >> My question is why does it need to be called "alt.conservative.forum?"
>|> >> Couldn't it have a more intelligent name, like
>|> >> "alt.politics.conservative?"
>|> >
>|> >or "alt.politically.correct.conservatives" which would describe what the 
>|> >group is about.
>|> 
>|> Or alt.conservatives.who.are.such.weenies.that.they.can't.bear.to.argue.with.
>|> all.those.scary.liberals.
>
>Conservatives are quite capable of strong arguments for their positions, but
>tend to get annoyed by name-calling such as this when it occurs so frequently.
>Personally, I see no point in excluding commie-libs from the newsgroup if they
>want to engage in honest debate (even Rush says we need to keep a couple of
>them around on each college campus as museum pieces).  Perhaps a better name
>for the moderated newsgroup would be alt.politics.polite, and the purpose of
>moderation be to censor attitudes, not ideas.
>
>-- 
>// John Townsend             "I thought I was      Legal Conversion Engineering
Geez.  Forget one smiley, and I get flamed =) =) =).  Anyway, this isn't
such a bad idea.  Anyone want to explain to me how a moderated newsgroup works?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Soul of the Republican Party
Date: 18 Dec 1992 19:23:44 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

|> Matthew Bruce) writes:
|> > 
|> > Oddly enough, in national elections up to 1992, the Republicans seemed to
|> > have done best when they could demonstrate the lines of ideological
|> > distinction between the parties, the Democrats doing best when those
|> > distinctions could be blurrer.
|> 
Talk about seeing what you want to see.  In 1992 the Republicans did 
terrible in the voting booth, but they did an excellent job of demonstrating
clear ideological differences between the two parties.  The R party
showed they believed in interference in personal decisions, exclusion
of all who disagreed with them, fundamentalist Christianity as the arbiter
of values, and an obsessive passion for helping the wealthy increase
their percentage of America's net worth.

It was these very clear idealogical distinction which earned them
the loss they absolutely deserved.  There just aren't enough of
those kind of Republicans to win an election.  And that is even
taking into account people who voted for Bush even though
they didn't like the platform and felt excluded from the party.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10264 alt.politics.clinton:18763 alt.politics.bush:14625 alt.politics.homosexuality:8045 alt.rush-limbaugh:11763
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Date: 14 Dec 92 18:56:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <12DEC199213472570@zeus.tamu.edu> rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>In article <Bz5r1K.9wK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes...
>| 
>|  Except for an occasional screw-up (play on words unintended), the
>|military has not knowingly drafted, enlisted, or commissioned anyone whom
>|they knew to be homosexual.  Those who are later found to be such are quickly
>|separated.  Admittedly, my experience only goes back three decades so I
>|can't address what the policy was prior to that.  The "need every bit of
>|help they can get" argument sounds more like a Billary initiative.
>
>	Indeed?  I was told that now-a-days, you cannot claim to be Gay
>in order to get out of the military when there is compulsory service 
>(draft).  I hate to have given out incorrect information.  Do you know
>if what you are saying is true for these days?
>
>Gadson Sandor

I was in the US Air Force from 7 June 77 thru 1 Feb 1982, and if, at any 
point during that time, I wanted to get a "General" discharge, all I had 
to do was go to my commander and convince him that I was gay.  Guaranteed.

Does anyone out there have newer information?

Ted

-- 
So the Maples formed a union, and demanded equal rights, "The Oaks are just 
too greedy.  We will make them give us light!"  Now there's no more Oak 
oppression, for they passed a noble law.  And the trees are all kept equal, 
by hatchet, axe and saw.     -  Rush, The Trees
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Disclaimers on TV show
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:24:59 GMT

In article <Bz9pwL.4wx@icon.rose.hp.com> bparrish@rose.hp.com (Bill Parrish) writes:
>I'm curious... in Sacramento the Rush Limbaugh TV program is preceeded by
>a disclaimer... something to the effect that "The Views expressed on the
>Rush Limbaugh program do not necessarily reflect those of the staff and
>management of KCRA Channel 3, or its sponsors... etc".  I'm curious if this
>is done in other parts of the country.

The two stations in my area - Channel 13 in Los Angeles and Channel 12 in 
San Luis Obispo showed a disclaimer when the show first started, but 
now they go directly into the show from their commercials.
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ryanm@stein.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly)
Subject: Disappointment with this group...
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:32:10 GMT


I just joined this group today and already hate it.  I love to listen to
Rush Limbaugh when ever I get a chance.  Infact I can't watch his show
until I workout (it works too!).  I don't get to listen to him very often
because all the computers in my shop cause horrible interferrence.  I
thought this news group would help me keep up in the Ditto head stuff.  I
now have to wade through a pile of puss from Libs/Nazis/Fems/Humanists
just to get one of relevance.

It was mentioned that a moderated conservative news group should be formed
is a great idea.  I welcome a chance to discuss ideas without the above
people butting in.  I enjoy a good arguement but not on every comment
made.  I hope we can create a news group like this.

I think the people who have invaded this news group and turned good
fruitfull discussions into a garbage pit typifys the liberals as childish
and without restraint.  I do not feel this way with all liberals and some
have good points and valid discussions but the majority are trash
conversations.  GROW UP PEOPLE!  --Ryan

I don't need flames, just understanding.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
  Ryan McNeilly                    Internet: ryanm@u.washington.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"You can't deal from a position of weakness"  --Alfred Thayer Mahan
Moral:  Protect the 2nd Amendment!

My comments and opinions are my own and nobody elses!!!!!

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Homos and the Draft (Re: Homophobes in the Military)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:30:50 GMT

rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu writes:

>In article <Bz5r1K.9wK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes...
>| 
>|  Except for an occasional screw-up (play on words unintended), the
>|military has not knowingly drafted, enlisted, or commissioned anyone whom
>|they knew to be homosexual.  Those who are later found to be such are quickly
>|separated.  Admittedly, my experience only goes back three decades so I
>|can't address what the policy was prior to that.  The "need every bit of
>|help they can get" argument sounds more like a Billary initiative.

>	Indeed?  I was told that now-a-days, you cannot claim to be Gay
>in order to get out of the military when there is compulsory service 
>(draft).  I hate to have given out incorrect information.  Do you know
>if what you are saying is true for these days?
>Gadson Sandor

Positive.  Of course all that may change shortly.

Don
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10254 talk.abortion:52113