HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
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) 

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

EK>I say we all call 1800-925-1300 and make Perot thinks he has lots of
EK>support so that we can laugh at him when he gets barely more than
EK>Marrou/Lord.

I liked Ross's response when he was asked by Harry Smith on CBS:

"Why does your 800 number only register YES votes?"

Ross:
"I am a business man, I pay for this line, I don't want to pay to
have people tell me they don't like me, they can sent a letter"

This line was supposed to be setup to allow those people that weren't
in the normal flow of Perot workers to tell him their thoughts.

The line opened on Monday, he made his decision on Thursday.  How is
he supposed to recieve and process letter by then.  The guy doesn't
even apply simple logic to the drivil he dishes out.

And his frequent opening line "I am a business man".  In this case:
"I am a business man, I pay".  I guess only business men care about
saving money and not wasting it endlessly.
---
 . DeLuxe./386 1.25 #42 . 
                              
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: el27166@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (This Space for Rent)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh on Madonna (was Re: Summary Mon 10/5/92)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 03:36:11 GMT
Keywords: Unofficial Summary Rush Limbaugh

[Rush taking a jab at Madonna deleted]

The thought of Rush Limbaugh on Madonna is certainly not a pleasant one.

-- 
Eu-Ming Lee (aka CyberGeek)                      el27166@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Nobody told me there'd be .sigs like these."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-&{&gp% +/)@ooooooo
NO CARRIER
From: palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:59:25 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

In <1992Oct05.185808.22619@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:

>What has led this country to most of its current woes are two drugs called 
>"entitlements" and "pork barrel"

>Entitlements is a particular nasty drug. It changes people from self-
>sufficient, proud citizens to lazy "why should I work the government will
>take care of me" dependents.

Unfortunately, it also does the same to businesses. When was the last time
you saw a factory or corporate center being built without millions being
extorted from local governments. No doubt, by the time the freebies run
out, the company will relocate and have another batch of saps pay for it.

>Pork-barrel is a similar drug, only generally used to addict state and local
>governments instead of individuals. Alot of pork is hidden in military and
>social programs. The net effect is the same - state and local governments
>now have a dependency on federal pork to balance their budgets. So much for
>self-sufficiency.

Agreed. Susan Engeleiter, who lost a Senate race in Wisconsin four years back,
was a proponent of a germaneness rule. I wholeheartedly agree. A bill's 
intent must be defined when it is sent to committee. You can't add spending
to a non-appropriations bill and you can't mix spending between different
departments. I hope some of the hundred-odd people being sent to congress
this year pick up on the idea.

>Unfortunately, Bill Clinton doesn't offer anything this country needs.
>Clinton has proposed another 200 billion in spending. While I agree with you
>that Bush is not the answer to this country's needs over the next four
>years, your blind opposition to Bush has made you less considerate of what
>other candidates are offering.

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

>NOT!

True. That has to come from self-sacrifice.
From: griffin@eecae.ee.msu.edu (Danny Griffin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Date: 3 Oct 92 03:49:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Michigan State University

csmith@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:

>I have not been able to find a single bookstore that
>has Rush's book!
>when I ask for it, the booksellers look perplexed as if they never heard
>of it.  

Come on, how can a bookstore say they've never even heard of a book that
has been on the New York Times Best Seller list for three weeks running, 
and #1 for the last two weeks?  It has sold 1,080,000 copies in 3 weeks
alone.  This is awfully hard to believe.
-- 
Dan Griffin                     "We lost our corkscrew and had to live
griffin@egr.msu.edu              on food and water."  WC Fields
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: phurley@tamu.edu (Philip W. Hurley)
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Organization: Computer Technology Group, TAEX
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 14:37:13 GMT

In article <3736@eastman.UUCP> dan@ektools.kodak.com (Daniel P. Schaertel) 
writes:

>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.
>>

>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.

Amen. Couldn't have said it better myself.
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush vs. Murphy Brown
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:35:43 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

In article <1992Sep29.142535.13445@walter.cray.com>, jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood) 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?

	Sex abuse? No, my parental experiance hasn't progressed that far.
I do understand something about babies, though, having spent a fair bit
of time with one.

	Rush has been devorced twice. I can understand how a relationship
can go wrong, but to have it go wrong twice maked me think that Rush
isn't too perceptive when it comes to interpersonal relationships. He
either can't see a problem before it's too late, or he *is* the problem.
I doubt that he is going to do better with a child then he did with adults.

|>  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? 

	I don't think that taking care of my kid is politically correct. I
do it because it's what I think a father should do. I guess you have
other ideas - IMHO it's your loss.

|>  My kids listen to Charlie Parker. 

	Mine does, too, now. It took about 8 monthes for him to grasp
anything more complex then 4/4 - his first "favorite" music was James
Taylor and AC/DC. 

-- 
                               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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: DIR
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: world,usa,na,alt
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:31:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.141209.1@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu> nordquist@jaguar.csc.wsu.edu writes:
>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? 

Hey, moron, why don't you listen to the show once in a while instead of 
just reading my summary off the net. 1) The liberals were the ACLU, among
others. I didn't note that fact, but it's in the LA Times story if you 
can be bothered to look it up. 2) Rush doesn't have to present two points
of view on any situation - if you want another viewpoint, listen to the
rest of the media, or read a magazine, or newspaper. As Rush says, he 
doesn't need equal time, he is equal time.

3) Read the frigging disclaimer at the head of each summary - these 
things are not approved by Rush and you are an idiot for criticizing
Rush using my summaries as a basis. Get a clue, Jack - these summaries
are for my benefit, period. I post them because others find them useful, 
but it's flat-out idiotic to use the words that I write and cricitze 
Rush for them. 
-- 
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
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 18:58:08 GMT

peckman@gacvx1.gac.edu writes:

>It would be nice if you would realize that conservatism has led to most of our
>country's current woes

Hahaha. This is a gem.

What has led this country to most of its current woes are two drugs called 
"entitlements" and "pork barrel"

Entitlements is a particular nasty drug. It changes people from self-
sufficient, proud citizens to lazy "why should I work the government will
take care of me" dependents.

Forty years ago, people were proud. Rarely would someone take a handout.
Instead, they would work hard to better themselves and provide for their
families. Today, thanks to that nasty entitlement drug, people are more
apt to just say "awww shucks, the government will just take care of my
problem".

Pork-barrel is a similar drug, only generally used to addict state and local
governments instead of individuals. Alot of pork is hidden in military and
social programs. The net effect is the same - state and local governments
now have a dependency on federal pork to balance their budgets. So much for
self-sufficiency.

The United States has changed into the land of the Gimme-Gimme-Gimme
populace, and god-forbid you should want to cut their entitlement or
pork-barrel because there is no more money available. "Tax The Rich!
Make Them Pay Their Fair Share!" they cry.


>and if George Bush is re-elected, our country will fall
>even farther behind Japan and Germany both educationally and economically. 

Clue: Perhaps you might want to look at the work ethics in these countries.
      People in these countries aren't afraid to work hard for a good
      day's pay.


>It's time for a change.  Our country needs fewer Rush Limbaughs and more Bill
>Clintons. 

Unfortunately, Bill Clinton doesn't offer anything this country needs.
Clinton has proposed another 200 billion in spending. While I agree with you
that Bush is not the answer to this country's needs over the next four
years, your blind opposition to Bush has made you less considerate of what
other candidates are offering.

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

NOT!

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Deja Vu all over again
Date: 29 Sep 92 11:51:29 GMT
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <122460001@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
>In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) writes:
>
>> While reading article <1992Sep21.162746.19390@dg-rtp.dg.com>, I noticed that
>> crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun) said the following:
>>  >"We have to tell our children that they must redefine their relationship to 
>>  > the sky, and they must begin to think of the sky as a threatening part of 
>>  > their environment."
>>  >		  
>>  >		  Earth in the Balance -- Al Gore
>> 
>> Ah yes -- yet another reason I fear a Clinton/Gore victory (Al Gore:  A REAL
>
>Why?  Is the quote above an example of why you fear him.  Data on ozone
>depletion SOUNDS real, and skin cancer rates are on the rise are they not?
>I saw somewhere that one good sunburn when you are a child dramatically
>raises the chances for skin cancer.  With depleted ozone, it is probably
>even more important to be worried about exposure.  Gore's statement
>sounds fairly responsible to me.

Odd.  You see this as a responsible comment by someone who cares about the
environment.  I see a politically powerful politician who wants to scare
children.  

>
>doug



===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"Above all, as the keynote of all Democratic policy, in passing upon any
 question, let the controlling aim and ambition be to keep the road open for
 private enterprise and personal initiative."

             John W. Davis - Democratic candidate for President - 1924

===============================================================================
"I do not want to live under a philanthropy.  I do not want to be taken care
 of by the government.... We do not want a benevolent government.  We want a
 free and a just government."

             Woodrow Wilson  

===============================================================================
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion,alt.sex,talk.politics.misc
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:55:09 -0400 
From: Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
	<1992Sep25.215003.9493@crd.ge.com>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.sex: 25-Sep-92 Re: rights and responsibili..
Cathi Cook@dollar.crd.ge (1137)

> In article <Bv20t2.JEx@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, varney@sage.cc.purdue.edu
> (Bruce Varney) writes:
> |>In <1992Sep21.170813.3183@pwcs.stpaul.gov> chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A
> Lyman) writes:
> |>
> |>	A couple DOES consent to the possibility of pregnancy when they
> |>consent to sex.

> But I am still unclear as to why you are making the gigantic leap from
> this that the woman has consented to carry to term.

He didn't.  What he said was that the choice for an abortion is immoral.

> |>>Anyway, contraception fails more often than we care to
> |>>admit, and abortion can be a responsible way of dealing with that
> circumstance.
> |>
> |>	No - it is an irresponsible and cowardly acy. Killing a defenseless
> |>child for convenience's sake is deplorable.

> Do please tell us Bruce, how inconvenient you found it to be when you
> were pregnant.

Today's word of the day is "Straw man".  Can everybody here say, "Straw
man"?  Claiming that a person should not oppose murder because of their
gender is silly.  If someone considers abortion murder, then they are
morally bound to oppose it.

> If you have never been pregnant, please do not insult the intelligence
> of the women here who _have_ with your high-handed, arrogant dismissal
> of the very real physical and emotional risks of every pregnancy.

> |>			Bruce
>                        
>                           -rocker
>                            maybe he just thinks it will get him lots
>                            of email from women

I prefer his moral stand to your sniping, empty attacks.

					Tom the non hacker
					Read my lips, No second Term!
					Buchanan in 92!
From: spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Did I miss something?
Date: 3 Oct 1992 23:51:27 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: szechuan.ucsd.edu

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.

Smirk.

Giggle.

Sngughhughrghhhghghghghghg..... bwahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha.

Geez... it hurts when you try to stifle a laugh like that.

							spl
-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"If you don't think people are this crazy, you need to move to LA!"
                                     - Gary Stollman
From: daq@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Doug Quarnstrom)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:30:37 GMT
Subject: Re: Femi-Nazi's
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

In alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, brpleshek@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:

> On the show, and I think that it was on tuesday's program, Rush corrected
> our views on what a femi-nazi is.  Could anyone post what it was, I can only
> remember part of it.  

I love this.  This is really funny.  

 "Rush corrected our views"

What a creepy sentence fragment.  It sort of evokes images of some
sort of collective mind with Rush as the driving agent.

doug
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: csmith@boa.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith)
Subject: Re: A Note on Book Sales
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:42:25 GMT

In regard to finding people who have read Rush Limbaugh's book but not
Clinton's or Gores, I have not been able to find a single bookstore that
has Rush's book!  It is not display (though lots of liberal tripe _is_) and
when I ask for it, the booksellers look perplexed as if they never heard
of it.  Could it be there is conserted effort to keep the book out of
reader's hands, at least until after the election?

I finally found a TAPE of the book (abridged *sigh*) so that will have to
hold me for now.

Anyone know where I can find this book in Columbus?

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.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: Rush is bad for our country
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:18:20 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.105549.1@gacvx1.gac.edu>, 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 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!

Obviously you haven't been to Arkansas during the past twelve years.  Mr.
Clinton's wonderful state, while being a beautiful state (when you look around
the polution in the water and on the land, that is) and home of some very nice
folks, is stuck in the 1930s.  Clinton has shown that he knows how to lead a
state that has been in an economic "depression" for 50+ years (and keep it
there).  As a friend of mine from Arkansas says, Clinton will give America
what he gave Arkansas: two cars in every yard (neither one of which runs). 
Unfortunately, Clinton will likely lead the US back to the Great Depression
and solve it the way Democrats always have - by getting into a war (FDR taught
them well).

Sure, he's "produced" jobs in Arkansas by luring union jobs away from other
states (and just think, the AF of L/CIO supports him).  Oh, that's right, I
almost forgot that there are twice as many people working at McDonald's than
there were when he became governor.

And sure, "he" balanced the state's budget (actually the Arkansas legislature
did) it's required by the Arkansas state constitution.

And, oh yes, he will bring the rest of the US down to the educational
standards of the state of Arkansas!

And there's his fighting against abortion rights and for Arkansas' laws
against practicing sodomy (PC word: homosexuality).  But he's seen the light
now.  (But for how long?)

Clinton loves to run against Bush's record, but the reality is that Clinton
has a worse record and just uses a ton of butter, saddle soap, and bull to
fool those who refuse to see the truth and to convince the rest no to
look for it.  The reality of the matter is that Arkansas is in such bad shape
that he can play with the statistics and make it look like he's done a "great"
job.  You want to know the truth?  Go to Arkansas, drive from corner to
corner, talk to people, open your eyes, and you will see the future under
George Bush looks a lot better than it does under Slick-Willie.


Doug Page

***  The opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my  ***
***  employer.                                                           ***