HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny)
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 10:26:17 GMT

griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin) writes:
>>RUSH has more plug-time logged.

>Gore was on Nightline for an entire evening talking about his book.  (Maybe he

One evening compared to the daily slot Rush has.

>you define plug-time, especially 'quality' of time.  If I want a book, or CD,
>or soemthing that is not in stock, I order it.  If someone thinks something is
>important, they'll get it.

I never denied that.

>Look, if people wanted to buy those books, they'd buy them.  Quit trying to 
>make excuses.

Yipes!  I was presenting what I saw as a REASON for Rush's books
success.  
 
I guarantee you, if Clinton/Gore (or anyone, for that matter, who many
people liked and agreed with) had a daily radio show and a tv show and
they mentioned their book every episode...they'd be selling more.
 
I thought conservatives were supposed to be rational.
 
...e

--
 ____                     + Editor, SOUND News and Arts magazine
|____                     + PO BX 31104, Omaha,NE 68131 (lg SASE for copy)
|____ D@CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU  + SOUND FTPable: quartz.rutgers.edu(pub/journals) 
(Ed Stastny/UNO/Omaha,NE) +                141.214.4.135(docs/zines/sound)
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:41:43 GMT

In article <1atlquINNn09@agate.berkeley.edu> henken@ocf.berkeley.edu (Matthew J. Henken) writes:
>
@ >In article <1992Oct6.001338.27975@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) says:
@ 
@ @         It seems that he _relished_ the thought of her being sexually
@ @ humiliated, which I find rather sick. Yes, sick. I think sex should be
@ @ for enjoyment, not for humiliation, whatever Rush Limbaugh may think.

>Perhaps the only thing less apetizing than Ted Danson giving the ecological
>forcast for the decade is Polly Purebread here standing before a goodly
>portion of the civilized world and proclaiming not only her ideas of the
>purpose of sex, but declaring her contempt for those who might not share
>her beady-eyed perspective.

	So you think that trying not to humiliate others would take
all the fun out of sex?

	Sheesh. Makes me wonder...

	Maybe we should report you to the Moral Majority sometime and
give your sexuality as an example of our decadent society's extremes
of kinkiness. And report Rush Limbaugh also.

>Take it to alt.sex.bigot (aliased in some systems as alt.sex.eww.that's.icky).

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush is bad for our country
From: peckman@gacvx1.gac.edu
Date: 5 Oct 92 10:55:49 -0600
Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College, St. Peter, Minnesota
Nntp-Posting-User: peckman

dear Rush fans,
It would be nice if you would realize that conservatism has led to most of our
country's current woes and if George Bush is re-elected, our country will fall
even farther behind Japan and Germany both educationally and economically. 
It's time for a change.  Our country needs fewer Rush Limbaughs and more Bill
Clintons.  Rush spouting off about goofy liberals will get us nowhere.  But
Bill Clinton as our next president will offer our country something it has
sorely lacked in the past 4 years...hope for the future!
From: brpleshek@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush words!
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:53:37 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
X-From: brpleshek@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
X-Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh

X-Date: 5 Oct 92 17:53:01 -0500
X-Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

Is anyone compiling a list of Rush's Lexicon?

Brian Pleshek
Brpleshek@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Miami University, Ohio
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gardwt@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: seer
Organization: Auburn University, AL
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:06:11 GMT
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Liberal Havens...
Date: 4 Oct 92 04:40:48 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <92272.192542KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
>Well, you have to realize that the Net is a liberal haven, with a low
>percentage of conservatives.  (Don't ask me why, it's just a fact.)
>Then it all makes sense.

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

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.

Now, the net is a liberal haven. 

Geez, you people are worse then the Kennedy assassination conspiracy
theorists. 
-- 
What the gamemasters wilt shall be the whole of the law.
	- Motto of the Hellfire Club, live-action roleplaying GM's
We need not fear those who do evil in the name of evil, but Heaven
protect us from those who do evil in the name of good.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: Numerical Aerodynamic Simulation Facility NASA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 19:55:17 GMT
Reply-To: dking@raul.nas.nasa.gov (Dan King)


I have set follow ups to talk.abortion.  I have no idea what group
Jason John Seaver is posting from, so I left newsgroups alone.
 
js>In article <1ad9meINNbkq@bigboote.WPI.EDU> jseaver@arkose.WPI.EDU (Jason John Seaver) writes:
cl>In article <1992Sep30.195132.6469@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman) writes:
uk>In article <0emFScG00WBL88NuU3@andrew.cmu.edu> unknown writes:
 
uk> If she really could not afford (not monetarily speaking) to become
uk> pregnant, she shouldn't have risked pregnancy by having sex.

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

js>	No, death isn't.  Having a child, however, IS.

Why isn't death?  It seems inconsistent to me that the woman agrees
to coitus sex agrees to carrying a pregnancy, but doesn't agree to
the possibility of dying.
 
js>	Very, VERY few people would complain about abortion when the mother's
js>life is in danger.  However, if the woman is pregnent through voluntary sex...
js>Well, you could say she's committed herself.

And that is what I don't understand.  It would seem the same people 
that insist on the woman continuing the pregnancy would also insist
on her forfeiting her life for the life of the child.  Your argument,
as I understand it is that the woman knew when she had coitus sex, that
a pregnancy could result.  Since she knew this then she has a 
responsibility to the fetus and therefore she can not terminate 
the pregnancy by killing the fetus.  I hope I haven't misunderstood 
your argument.  Where I think your argument lacks consistency is
if the woman knew when she participating in coitus sex that she could
die if complications arise in the pregnancy.  Wouldn't she still
have a responsibility to this fetus?  Shouldn't she then due to this
responsibility have to forfeit her life to save the fetus's life.
She made the commitment by having coitus sex and why would threat
to her own life allow her out of this commitment?

js>						-Jay

Dan King
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: LLNL
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:13:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.212140.20360@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:

>Madonna's new $4 million estate in Coral Gables took a "big
>beating, though." Windows were broken and the landscape was
>damaged. Rush says that this is no big deal for Madonna - "it's
>not the first time that some guy blew into town for a night,
>trashed her, and then left."

	This was the Rush Limbaugh quote I was talking about.

	It seems that he _relished_ the thought of her being sexually
humiliated, which I find rather sick. Yes, sick. I think sex should be
for enjoyment, not for humiliation, whatever Rush Limbaugh may think.
From: griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Date: 3 Oct 92 03:44:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Michigan State University

ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny) writes:

> I don't think it's
>neccessarily that there's a "conservative supra-majority"...I just think
>RUSH has more plug-time logged.

Gore was on Nightline for an entire evening talking about his book.  (Maybe he
was on Larry King or others too, I dunno).  I'm sure Ted Koppel has a larger
viewing audience than Rush Limbaugh, and I'm sure a larger percentage of
Koppel's audience would be inclined to buy _The Comeback Kid_ and _Earth in
Decline_ (or whatever Gore's book is called) than Rush's.  Most people have
to stay up until 1:00 AM or even later just to see Rush's show.  The bookstores
have these books very prominently displayed.  I guess it just depends on how
you define plug-time, especially 'quality' of time.  If I want a book, or CD,
or soemthing that is not in stock, I order it.  If someone thinks something is
important, they'll get it.

Look, if people wanted to buy those books, they'd buy them.  Quit trying to 
make excuses.
-- 
Dan Griffin                     "We lost our corkscrew and had to live
griffin@egr.msu.edu              on food and water."  WC Fields
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:23:59 GMT
Distribution: na, usa
Organization: A.I. Chem Lab, University of Arizona


>In article <3736@eastman.UUCP> dan@ektools.kodak.com (Daniel P. Schaertel) writes:
>             [...]
>   Why ? because a good portion of the net is comprised of college
>   students.  People who haven't had to pay the price that liberalism
>   brings.  These people are very idealistic.  So is liberalism.  The
>   problem is when you live in the real world you see that the ideas of
>   these people don't work.  I used to be somewhat liberal myself, but 14
>   years in the work force and a family of 4 has changed the way I look at
>   life.  My VALUES are different.  These college students basically are
>   only responsible for themselves,(and many of them probably aren't even
>   good at that).  They haven't really learned what responsibility is.  And
>   that is one of the major difference between liberalism and conservatism.

Yes, it is easy to chose between greedy self interest and selflessness when you
don't have much money to give away as a student.   But the possession of money
seperates the true liberals from those who only posed as liberals because
it was trendy, got the girls, or whatever.

Yes, now that I am in the market place, and earning $$$, it is hard to give
some of it away.  But so far I have been able to resist the siren lure of
the 80's greed call, and continue to donate money and time to charity,
and am willing to pay taxes to support this country which has given me so much.

I do know what responsibility is;  not only to my family, but to my
community and my country.   Sometimes I think I would like to ingore the
latter two, and keep all my money for myself - but then I shake off that
rather nasty greedy idea, and write another check, or go out and spend 
time working with abused children.

Do YOU do anything for your community?  I'll match you hour for hour.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:22:16 GMT

peckman@gacvx1.gac.edu writes:
>dear Rush fans,
>It would be nice if you would realize that conservatism has led to most of 
>our country's current woes

Dear Rush critics,
    It would be nice if *you* would realize that not all Rush Limbaugh fans 
are conservatives.

> and if George Bush is re-elected, our country will fall even farther 
>behind Japan and Germany both educationally and economically. It's time 
>for a change.

    Yup, no question.

>  Our country needs fewer Rush Limbaughs and more Bill Clintons.

    That's a scary thought. To be perfectly honest with you, I intend to 
vote for Clinton, but I think that one Bill Clinton is sufficient.

>Rush spouting off about goofy liberals will get us nowhere.

    Similarly, goofy liberals spouting off about Rush will also get us 
nowhere.

> But Bill Clinton as our next president will offer our country something 
>it has sorely lacked in the past 4 years...hope for the future!

    4 years? Try 12.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: skwarek@src.honeywell.com (Tom Skwarek)
Subject: Re: Rush burns Hillary, and other things...
Organization: Honeywell Systems & Research Center
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 18:57:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.175831.22596@news.eng.convex.com> roan@convex.com (Russell Roan) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.160022.1298@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.ccs.csus.edu (Steve Chaney : Borg Operating Space Systems, Revision 2.0) writes:
>
>>Hillary Clinton did an interview with affiliate WWWE in
> mumble mumble deleted.... Sorry about the previous post.....
>
>	Uhh, I don't really expect any of you dittoheads to know this,
>	so I'll just let you know that one must first complete an 
>	undergraduate degree before being awarded a Rhodes scholarship.  
>	Thus Bill Clinton must have completed a college degree before
>	even applying for the Rhodes.
>
> Other mumble deleteed......
>-- 
>Russell Roan	  |"Lord, teach us to respect our political opponents....
>roan@convex.com   | In the hard campaign ahead, help us to never boast,
>Vox: 214-497-4841 | nor to be uncharitable."  - Dan Quayle at prayer.

In all sincerity please educate me on the Vietnam draft. If Clinton had 
an undergrad degree, wasn't he eligible for the draft? Was grad school 
an exemption from the draft? I thought the exemption was only for undergrad
work.


From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:10:26 GMT
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:

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

Of course rush fans will not get upset by this, because rush himself
is always telling people to calm down and have a sense of humor.
I wonder if he means it.

doug
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 04:35:40 GMT
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:

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

A fact?  Prove it.  I see just as much conservative stuff as liberal
stuff, but I would not claim either dominates without some extremely
careful research.

doug
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: phz@cadence.com (Pete Zakel)
Subject: Re: Summary Mon 9/14/92
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh
Organization: Cadence Design Systems
Distribution: world,usa,na,alt
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:04:01 GMT

> >>                                                           Rush
> >> adds that women have been excluded from this sport for decades -
> >> shouldn't this be a good warning about how aggressive the sport
> >> is?
> >
> >Following that logic, men should not be allowed to play football
> >either because of all the injuries.
>
>No, but then again reread Tawana's argument.  She's suing because she
>"wasn't adequately warned" of the risk of injury.  Rush isn't saying she
>shouldn't play, just that it's damned stupid of her to sue.  ANYONE who
>decides to do something like play football and then gets hurt and sues is IMHO
>just as bad as the newbies who ski down a black run and then sue the resort for
>negligence when they lose control and severely injure themselves.

Yes, but Rush than takes this example and extrapolates to:

	1) Feminists are stupid

	2) Females shouldn't play football

both of which are stupid conclusions that don't follow logically from the
premises.

The real conclusions should be:

	1) People shouldn't be able to sue for stupid reasons

	2) People definitely have enough data generally available to figure
	   out that football is a dangerous sport, so Tawana shouldn't be able
	   to sue for her injuries.

I consider her lawsuit to equivalent to the woman who one a lawsuit against
a refrigerator company because it failed to post a warning on the lower drawers
that they shouldn't be used as a stairstep (she was overweight and severely
injured when the fridge fell on her as she was standing on the pulled-out lower
drawer to be able to reach into the freezer), or the man who won a lawsuit
against a lawnmower company when he was injured using the lawnmower as a hedge
clipper.

One shouldn't be able to sue for simple stupidity.

This in no way means that females should not be able to play football.

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

Mad, adj.:
	Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence ...
		-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
From: mark.stevens@spacebbs.com (Mark Stevens) 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:29:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: mark.stevens@spacebbs.com (Mark Stevens) 

JT>Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.perot
JT>From: johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend)
JT>Subject: Re: 1-800-925-1300
JT>Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
JT>Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:01:48 GMT
JT>Message-ID: <1992Oct1.150148.22249@meaddata.com>

JT>In article <cemXlRe00iUzM0trU2@andrew.cmu.edu>, ew2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Karl Witte) writes:
|> I say we all call 1800-925-1300 and make Perot thinks he has lots of
|> support so that we can laugh at him when he gets barely more than
|> Marrou/Lord.

The number has now been changed to 800/685-7777.  It now has an
introduction and then a selction menu where you can here several things
about Ross.  One of the items let's you here about upcoming Ross events.
They were advertising his apperance on 20/20 on Friday.  The message
said "See Ross on the ABC television station Friday at 9:00 central
standard time".

This is real media awareness.  ABC is a television network, not station.
And sure Dallas is in the central time zone.  But 80% of the country
is either in the eastern or pacific time zones where 20/20 is on at 10:00.
Given that they assume that the Perot followers can't figure out what
20/20 is and where it's shown, they should give better time information.
What type of advisors/advertising people would only think of the
central time zone.
---
 . DeLuxe./386 1.25 #42 . 
                                              
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: harryo@cbnewse.cb.att.com (harold.r.holm)
Subject: Re: Idiots in High Places...
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 04:17:06 GMT

In article <9209201118.AA16422@MIT.EDU>, dks@MIT.EDU (dks) writes:
> X-        alt.politics.bush.usenet, alt.politics.clinton.usenet
> X-Command: : Send_AEvt(doAutoForward)
> 
> 
> best@anasazi.com (Mike "Knows" Best) writes:
> > Interesting, I interpret the barrage of attacks which refer to his
> > incorrect grammer or awkward phraseology as exactly as I have described.
> > The attacks are on a superficial level and do not debate the political
> > philosophy of the man.
> 
> Rubbish.  I'd say the "barrage of attacks" reveals widespread disgust
> with the person of Dan Quayl, and further disgust with the alleged political
> judgment of one George Herbert Walker Bush who TWICE selected this buffoon
> to be one cookie-toss away from the Presidency.
> 
> These alleged "successes" can also be "denied" by a US workforce that, on
> average, earns less now in constant dollars than it did in 1973.  And by
> millions of savings-and-loan depositors and the millions more who bailed
> them out.  And by millions of homeless veterans living on the streets of
> our towns and cities and the millions more who see them every day.
> 
> Dhanesh

Sheesh.....where do YOU PEOPLE  *get* this stuff???   MILLIONS of homeless
VETERANS?  Who did the count?  If such were the case, there would be, ahem,
just a *bit more* media coverage of it, you could be doggone sure.  Like,
are you stepping over these people on your way to work?  Or rather, have
you been *stepping ON/IN* something else in these crazy nightmares you're
obviously being affected by???  And carrying it over to your postings???

                                                 H.R. Holm
*comment my own, standard disclaimers, etc
 replies to the newsgroup only, please*

Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5931 alt.rush-limbaugh:5886
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Presidential Poll Critique
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (9/19/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 22 Sep 92 20:45:40 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <1992Sep21.155428.1296@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex) writes:
> In article <1992Sep20.193359.23157@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
> |> I would like to point out that, due to the Electoral College, unless the
> |> poll is taken on a State level it is really meaningless.  We have had
> |> presidents who have one the popular vote but lost the electoral vote.
>
>	Which ones? I knew that this was possible, but I didn't think
> that it had actually happened.
>

In 1968, Nixon defeated Humphrey by 510,000 popular votes (301-191).  For fun:
Nixon defeated McGovern in '72 with 520-17 electoral and by 18Million
votes :)  In 1960, JFK defeated Nixon by 115,000 popular votes (303-219).
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison won 233-168, but lost the popular vote by
90,000 (11 million total voters).  In 1876, Hayes defeated Tilden
185-184 and lost the popular vote by 254,000.  In all the elections
from 1876-1888, the popular vote was VERY close.

In 1988, Bush defeated Dukakis by 7,000,000 votes and 426-112.

All this proves is that the popular vote and the electoral vote
are not so closely tied together.  In 1988, Bush got 53% of the
popular vote and 80% of the electoral vote.  In 1984, Reagan got
51% of the popular vote and 97.5% of the electoral vote.


> --
>				 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

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024