HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rharlan@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Rick Harlan)
Subject: Re: This is OUTRAGEOUS...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 07:06:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.084822.27610@netcom.com> gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>
>I would ask Mr. Chaney how many "wars" he has served in?  A lot of women
>honor war veterans, and they have never served.  There is a difference
>between refusing to defend your country and refusing to serve your country
>by defending some other country.

	I think Mr. Chaney was pointing not to Gov. Clinton's record
of service but to his record of disservice.

>Clinton at least had the conviction to stand up for what he believed in.

	No. He did not. He lied his way out of the draft, and denied
his involvement in the protests in front of the American public. He
certainly never carried a picket sign where the voters of Arkansas could
have seen him.
	A number of Americans have gone to prison fighting against the
draft; Bill Clinton wasn't one of them. The President-Elect is not a coward
for dodging the draft; he is a coward for the way he dodged the draft.

>choice.  I also applaud those people (Clinton among them) who, by sticking
>to their convictions, were able to get the war stopped.  This country was

	The Viet Nam war was the longest military conflict in American
history. To suggest that the protesters shortened the duration of the
war is intentional misrepresentation of history (aka, lying). To
paraphrase from Admiral Stockdale, the blood of the soldiers who
died due to the prolongation of the war is on the hands of people like
Bill Clinton.
	(By the way, as for the Left protesting the policy and not the
soldiers, a study of the New Left will show that their propaganda
depicted American soldiers as blood thirst aggressors. At times war
protesters would greet returning soldiers with volleys of dog feces,
or tell the parents of soldiers that they hoped their sons would be
killed by the "Heroic Peoples Army".)

	If anyone wants to understand the despicable characters whom
Mr. Storga is defending (I'm sorry, "applauding"), you must read
_Destructive Generation : Second Thoughts on the Sixties_ (I'm not
certain about the exact title) by Peter Collier and David Horowitz.
-- 
Rick Harlan	     // The answer is blowing in the wind.
 rharlan            //			-Bob Dylan
@ucs.indiana.edu   // The Proof is left as an exercise for the reader. 
Indiana University//		        -Pierre de Fermat
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why alt.fan.rush-limbaugh????
Date: 19 Nov 92 12:37:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.


In article <1992Nov18.132211.3256@nic.csu.net>,
jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle ) writes...

>Proof positive that fan discussion is NOT what goes on here.

>Well, the Non-Limbot posters, anyway.  By the way, WHO invited these 
>Non-Limbots to post on a fan group?  I thought that was what alt.r-l was for.

You have an interesting point. However, in all a.f groups I have seen, there
are always anti-fans. I have no problem with this as it becomes a pretty dull
place when everyone agrees with everyone else about everything.

However, I do believe that it is inappropriate to bash individuals. Sure,
disagree on the issues, but keep it to the issues, not personal.

My wife and I disagree with each other on many topics, especially when watching
Rush. While I agree with him on a lot of things, there are others in which we
disagree. So we argue the ISSUE. We don't insult each other or assert that each
other is a bad or misguided person. Our idealogies differ. But so long as we
keep to the issue, things work out.

Regards,
Steve.

/*******************************************************************
* Steve Shapiro                 * All views and opinions expressed *
* SKS Computer Consulting, Inc. * are my own and are offered as-is *
********************************************************************
* Steve.Shapiro@f440.n101.z1.fidonet.org  BBS: (508) 664-6354 N81  *
*******************************************************************/
From: gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re:  Here's why I love this guy
Date: 18 Nov 92 14:00:38 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology


	Was this post supposed to be witty or an intelligent argument refuting
any validity Rush Limbaugh may or may not have.  If it was, I weep for the future
of the left and the Democrats...


					John R. Gonzalez
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: meyerj@alleg.edu
Subject: Re: Rush is RIGHT again
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:58:26 GMT

In article <1epe7iINNsuc@agate.berkeley.edu>  
yeomans@luxor.ced.berkeley.edu (Gary Todd Yeomans) writes:
> Rush was right about the UH-ReverUND JACKson-UH hiding in the wings for  
Clinton and the 
> big pay-off for hiding during the campaign.  Did you people see that  
they had dinner and
> Clinton went to one of Jackson's services where he called Clinton a  
"great healer"?
> 
> Here it comes, Jackson's going to be named to the Supreme Court or  
Minister of the Interior
> or something.
> 
> Did you people see the love-fest with Clinton on Saturday Night Live  
about the Gays in the 
> Military Skit.  Oh, man, did they lay in on thick.  "The greatest man of  
our Century..."???
> Please spare me the manure.  This guy is no saviour and I bet he won't  
even repeal the ban
> on homosexuals in the military.  
> 
> Todd Yeomans

As a U.S. Marine, I pray to God that Slick changes his mind about  
repealing the ban on gays in the military.  It's for their own good.  If  
you thought that racist attitudes were deeply imbedded in America, wait  
till you see the reaction of the military to gays.  They will be  
persecuted intensely, probably even killed.

Jon Meyer
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch Day 15
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:08:55 GMT

In <knauer.722462322@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu> knauer@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase) writes:

>In <grendel.722457042@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>BTW, I wouldn't get into the "issues" issue if I were you.  You [Switzer]
>>started this
>>post, and it's basically a waste of bandwidth.

>The Limbaugh Watch is only a waste of bandwidth in that it draws out the
>lame and feebleminded from their keyboards and infuriates them that someone
>like Limbaugh could be in-touch enough with the country to remain so popular.

It is a waste of bandwidth because it makes a pointless statement.  Basically
it says "I LIKE RUSH!"

SO WHAT?

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Re: Sniveling Whiny Conservatives
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:22:31 GMT

     "Sniveling Whiny Conservatives"...isn't that the followup to "Shiny Happy 
People" that R.E.M. did on "Automatic for the People"? The one they said would 
fit in more with the mood of the group? :-)

                                    Steve
///
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Not in a Rush to see Rush anymore
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:28:10 GMT

In article <41421@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
>Well if it helps, conservatism has won a big time by now allowing
>democrats to obtain power in house senate and white house. Quite a
>defeat for those evil democrats. 

Well, the Democrats may have won, but it's a Pyrric victory.  With
monopoly control of the entire government, they have no excuses for
the coming disaster.  They own it, lock stock and barrel.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth?
mvp@netcom.com         | Judging from realistic simulations involving a
                       | sledge hammer and a common laboratory frog, we
                       | can assume it will be pretty bad. -- Dave Barry
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mhl@spirit.ece.cmu.edu (Mikko H. Lipasti)
Subject: Re: THE NEWW AMERICAN REVOLUTION                               D
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:26:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.171117.953@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harry Tuttle) writes:
>
>BOYCOTT RUSH! BOYCOTT RUSH! BOYCOTT RUSH!
>

Shouldn't a Rush boycott also include a boycott of this newsgroup?  Please 
say yes...what a great way to improve the signal-to-(liberal-whiner)-noise
ratio of this group!!!

==========================================================================
From: nils@cabot (Nils Nieuwejaar)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:26:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>	But there will be less if we give them a "Hand Up" not a "Hand
>Out"--Jack Kemp Rep National Convention  also plagurized by Clinton in his
>"acceptance speech"

Actually, Jesse Jackson used the same phrase during the 1988 presidential
campaign.  I believe, although I don't have any documentation handy to
prove it, that the phrase was first used by FDR.  In either case, don't
be too quick to accuse someone of plagiarism without knowing the facts.
(and don't use the word plagurized [sic] until you know how to spell it)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:22:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

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

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

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: Jobism
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 15:27:51 GMT

  In response to:
>>   13. Vote for Jack Kemp in 96.

  Kelley Miller writes:
>First an actor, then a Jock...Gee, don't the Republicans have ANY
>educated people in their party?

     Imagine if I were one of those humor-impaired Democrats that I sometimes
have the misfortune of running into. Imagine that this were a comment about a
Democrat instead of about a Republican. Can you hear the screams of class
prejudice? Can you hear the earnest discussion about how the GOP will always be
the party of the rich who were fortunate enough to get a good education?
     (And if you'll permit me to indulge in some place-ism, I'd like to say
that there's something ironic about a person from the Youngstown, Ohio area
complaining about a lack of educated people in some other place or group.)
     Also, the Democrats nominated two lawyers this year. Should they be
proud about this? Does a Democrat have any grounds then for criticizing the
occupation of another party's candidate? And what if Bill Bradley won the '00
nomination? Would being an athlete suddenly be all right?

>*****************  James Trafficant for US Senate, 1998  *****************

     I hope he gets the Democratic nomination. Even Buzz "I Didn't Know She Was
16" Lukens could wipe the floor with this guy.

                                           Steve

     P.S. Sorry if this seems like overkill. Eight years of listening to "the
only reason people listen to Reagan is because he's an *actor*. I can't believe
that people elected an *actor* as President" left an impression in my psyche.

///
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu  
Subject: Re: Gay Marriages?
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Keywords: marriage, 14th Amendment, gays, lesbians
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:59:00 GMT

In article <19377@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, watnik@fisher.ucdavis.edu (Mitchell Watnik) writes...
| 
|For example:  My friend argues that the 14th Amendment provides that all
|citizens should have the same rights and privileges.  He says that gays'
|14th Amendment rights are violated since they do not enjoy the privilege
|of marrying the person of their choice.  I've argued against this point 3
|ways.

	It would seem the the current definition of marraige, as involving
two persons of different genders, is discrimination on the basis of gender.



|that you have the right to get married to whomever you want?") since I am
|not entitled to marry, say, "that pretty woman over there" (he talks about
|mutual consent, to which I respond (admittedly feebly) that then we could
|address inter-species marriage).

	You could argue over interspecies marriage if you wanted to, but it
would do nothing to defend the position of keeping marraige open to only 
members of the opposite sex.  

     ____                _
    /    )               /          
   /    /               /       
  (____/   ___     ___ /   ___,    ___   ,___ 
__    /   ____)   /   /   (__     /   )  /   )
 /   /   /   /   /   /       )   /   /  /   /     
(___/   (___(_  (___(_  (___/   (___/  /   (__    

rlc1028@zeus.tamu.edu
From: joltman@cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu (T. Andy Frakes)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Date: 23 Nov 1992 21:36:20 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cookie-crisp.ai.mit.edu

In article <105.2B0F4883@business.fidonet.org>, Andy.Soucy@f166.n363.z1.fidonet.org (Andy Soucy) writes:
|> It appears to me that some of you missed the boat or fell off....
|> rush may appear to be one sided at times,,,,ok a lot of times,but 
|> all he is trying to do is to balance to scale (the liberal media 
|> scale) His point of his shows is to make us think for our selves
|> not believe the propaganda they want to believe.whether its rep.or 
|> dem. they want us to believe there side and not the other.
|> bulllllhocky I say .
|> the issue is , is it right or is it wrong .who will benifit.
|> Is it right to put thousands of people out of work and put them on 
|> welfare because of a bird or a fish that can relocate on their own.?
|> we all pay in the llong run.....
|> --  
|>         Andy Soucy  -  via FidoNet Node: 1:363/42
|>              UUCP:  -  ...tarpit!tous!business!166!Andy.Soucy
|>              ARPA:  -  Andy.Soucy@f166.n363.z1.fidonet.org

Yeah, Rush makes it SOUND like he wants everyone to think for
ourselves, but what he ACTUALLY does is present a barrage of
twisted and fragmented 'facts' and then says "Ok, NOW go make your
own decision."  Few people have the time to research his sources
and see how badly he twists things around.  He'll say something like
"so-and-so said/wrote: [insert fact/partial fact, here] so that means
that he/she believes: [insert any of Rush's opinions/lies cleverly
disguised as facts/obvious deductions, here]."  Some of these
deductions about what the person 'believes' are so ludicrous that
you don't even need to check them because it is obvious that no one
in their right mind would actually believe such nonsense.

I don't know why you say that Rush is one-sided.  According to him,
HE IS EQUAL TIME.  Who's telling the truth?  You or Rush?

Rush knows that it is human nature for people to oppose the views
of someone who is really vocal about them.  That's how you decide
if you believe someone's views.  You try to find an argument against
the views.  If you can't, then you'll either make one up (if you're
closed-minded) or accept the idea.  This is why Rush doesn't try to
directly impose his ideas upon his listeners.  Instead, he presents
others' ideas and makes them sound ludicrous so that you'll
naturally oppose it and end up on Rush's side.  This method also
allows him to say "See, I'm not trying to impress any beliefs on
anyone!  I just present 'facts' and let you make your own decision!"

He likes using the name 'Slick Willy,' but it's sort of a case of
the pot calling the kettle black.  I suggest that people start
calling Rush, "SLICK LIMBY."

-Andy

-- 
T. Andy Frakes (joltman@ai.mit.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: The quintessential dittohead!
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: us
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 20:49:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.021524.9631@math.ucla.edu> pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.143329.17661@ryn.mro4.dec.com> shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Nov13.180732.1303@dbsun.uucp>, hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
>>
>
>This means he is wrong 1.9 % of the time. Therefore it is possible that
>when Rush says he is right 98.1% of the time that this is in fact one
>of the 1.9% of occasions when he is wrong! In which case he could be
>right any percentage of the time.
>
>THEREFORE (!!) it is quite possible that he is ALWAYS WRONG !!
>
>I tend to believe this conclusion 98.1% of the time.
>

Well, this certainly is an example of Twain's claim that
one has "lies, damn lies, and statistics."
A better use of mathematical alchemy (turning poor evidence into
a supposedly gold conclusion.)

While it certainly follows that there is a probability that
given that rush is wrong on 1.9% of occasions, he is wrong
all of the time.

this is equivalent to looking at a set of events, akin to coin
flipping with a p=.981 of coming up heads, but getting
a sequence of only tails. As any mathematician can tell you, this
set has measure 0.
ergo, the probability that rush is wrong all of the time is 0.
quod erat demonstrandum.

You certainly take liberties with the mathematics. I suppose that
you believed the proof, given in junior high algebra, that
1+1 doesn't equal 2. (believe me, there is a flawed proof of this.)




--
David Leung-tak
"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
"A day without sun is night."
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:17:20 GMT

In <1992Nov17.131514.4024@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.160934.21158@news.stolaf.edu>, kamilewi@mari.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz) writes:
>> In article <1992Nov16.190611.1@woods.ulowell.edu> enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>>>In article <Bxtovu.7Ap@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, 
>>>>tz10956@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:
>>>>> sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>                                                                   
>>>>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths                                          
>                                                                   
>>>>>21. Abortion is wrong.                                             
> 
>>>> But forcing women who cannot or do not wish to support children to have them,
>>>> in effect enslaving them, is perfectly alright.

>>>	Biology 101, Sex is first and foremost for the procreation of LIFE. 
>>>The old saying goes  here "If you don't want to get burned, don't play with
>>>fire."  It was a woman's choice to have sex or not(except cases of rape or
>>>incest) therefore she already executed her right to choose.  If a human being
>>>in the womb were just another body part abortion should be legal.(i.e. if you
>>>want your livver out take it out)  but human life is just that human life.)
> 
>> What if she was already trying to avoid getting pregnant, i.e. like using
>> birth control, and it happened anyway?

>Sex is for procreation, as he said.  Any time you do it, you run the
>risk - with or without birth control.  You accept the risk by engaging
>in it - with or without birth control.  You know what you're getting
>into.

Not always.  Accidents happen.  Birth control isn't always as effective as it
is made out to be.  Also, a sexual partner may lie about birth control.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:02:12 GMT

In <grendel.722136033@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
answers his telephone:
 

>HELLO!  Remember the coup?  Remember Gorbachev getting kidnapped?  Remember
>the breakup of the Soviet Union?  It happened because a RIGHT-wing faction
>of the government, that is, the old guard of Brezhnev/Lenin ideology,
>opposed Gorbachev's progressivism and willingness to allow state's rights.
>Calling Soviet government fascist left-wingers is way too convenient.


	This only goes to show that terms such as "left" and "right" are 
relative.  Still, to exploit this fact is being disingenuous.  In the
American political tradition, Breshnev and Lenin could hardly be considered
conservative.  And is it not the conservative who advocates federalism, that
doctrine upon which our country was founded, also called "states rights"?



Andrew AikeN
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: dp
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:25:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.200402.4286@news.columbia.edu>, aa102@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Amer  Ahmad) writes:
|> In response to the story about Al Gore.  Let me just say that we are lucky,
as Americans, to have such an able VP.  Unlike the present VP, Sen. Gore is
considered an expert in foreign affairs, arms-contorl, and the environment.
He is a fine public servan|> t who, by his peers, has been repeatedly voted
"most able member of Congress."
|> 
|> Amer
|> 
|> 
Isn't it funny the way Amer remembers that Big (Spender) Al was voted "most
able member of Congress".  He seems to forget that Quayle received similar
honors while in Congress.  As to Gore being a so-called "expert" foreign
affairs, arms-contorl (sic), and the environment, it depends on who you ask.
The only unanimously agreed upon expertise that Gore has is how to vote "yes"
on spending bills.

dp

***  The opinions are mine (maybe) and do not necessarily represent those  ***
***  of my employer.                                                       ***
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh