HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: msheldon@luna.dpl.scg.hac.com (Marti Sheldon)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Quayle won the debate.
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:15:14 GMT

>Most people have trouble believing Clinton (indeed, it's the cover story 
>of this week's Time Magazine) and Dan kept hammering the issue.  "Do you really
>trust Clinton to be President?"  I think most would answer "no".  And he and

MOST PEOPLE keep saying "Yes." Every day. Haven't you been listening to
the public opinion.  Polls, the man on the street, the voter's registration
numbers.  

Most people are saying "No more Bush" "No more trickle down economics"
"No more Republican lies."  You just aren't listening.

CLINTON/GORE '92

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:08:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.013258.6779@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes:
>In article <1b2l0cINN2bh@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
>regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>This is why all of you liberals are so whacked-out. Allow me to give
>y'all a lesson in Biology 101. When a baby is conceived, his/her
>genetic blueprint is formed. He (or she) is unique, and so are his/her
>characteristics -- big feet, blue eyes, brown hair, pug nose, et
>cetera.
Unless, of course, he/she is one of a monozygotic twin pair.
Aren't they different entitites? Guess genetics don't count for
everything.

>Before conception, that doesn't exist.
After conception, it doesn't exist either. Zygotes don't have
big feet, blue eyes, brown hair, or any of that crap. How can
a body of ten cells have eyes at all.
Potential is not actuality.

>the two are brought together, they form the blueprint for an
>INDIVIDUAL. When that individual is aborted, that blueprint for life is
>terminated. A baby that may have been a genius. The baby that may have
>the found the cure for AIDS, or the cure for cancer, now lying in a
>dumpster outside an abortion clinic.
That baby may have turned out to be Hitler or Manson. Your argument
is utterly vacuous.

>When you PREVENT pregnancy, an individual blueprint for life is not
>terminated... because one was never made in the first place!
So what?
The blueprint, just like the sperm and egg right before fertilization
doesn't have any of the characteristics I value in a person. IT has
the potential to develop them, just like the sperm and egg.
What's the difference.

>Geez. I don't know how people can't understand simple logic.
I don't know, William. Why can't you understand simple logic?

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out (perhaps) pro-choice
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:00:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <ldc341INNkci@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>Simon E. Booth) writes:
>|> Mike Polen) writes:
>|> >|>
>|> >Vagueness isn't your problem.  Your desire to hold an extremest
>|> >position that leaves no room for people to be people is your problem.
>|> >So far I have not met anyone who is perfect, but you expect people
>|> >to be perfect or pay.  Hopefully the courts and the law will continue
>|> >to help you keep your problem to yourself.
>|> >
>|> Being Pro-Life is not a problem.  And if I keep it to myself the issue
>|> will not go away.  I thought I lived in America......
>|> 
>You do live in america.  And no one is asking you to keep the issue
>to yourself.  You read what you wanted into my statement.  You have the
>right to convince people to not have abortions.  You have the right to
>not have one yourself (not to mention the right to ask *your* wife not to
>have one).  But you don't have the right to tell *my* wife she can't 
>have one.

  Technically, he does have such a right -- via proper legal and
  legislative channels.  That is, if the antiabortion faction manages
  to get the appropriate las passed and certified by the courts they
  certainly could stop all legal abortions in the country.  But it's
  clear that a majority in the US are pro-choice (and despite what 
  abortion foes say, "pro-choice" is not the same as "pro-abortion";
  I know plenty of pro-choice people who would never, themselves, 
  have an abortion).   What Booth, et al, do not have a right to do 
  is interfere in the legal business of abortion clinics or personal
  choices of women in this matter, under current law.


---peter

   
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,talk.abortion
From: lefty@apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:12:45 GMT
Organization: Our Lady of Heavy Artillery

In article <1060@bug.UUCP>, stevef@bug.UUCP (Steven R Fordyce) wrote:
> 
> Have you never heard the phrase, "she is with child"?  It makes no sense 
> unless "child" includes the unborn.

Have you never heard the phrase "she has a bun in the oven"?  It makes no
sense unless the child is a pastry and the woman a cooking appliance.

Halfwit!

--
Lefty (lefty@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:6813 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6416
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: RUSH: OUT OF A JOB?
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:00:38 GMT
Followup-To: alt.rush-limbaugh
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

neil.black@eabbs.uucp (Neil Black) writes:
-What will happen in four weeks when Clinton is elected?  Will Rush admit
-that he's wrong and that Reagonomics were wrong?  Boy, wouldn't it be
-great to see Rush go away and someone intelligent like Ray Taliaferro
-take his place?  I'd like that....

Boy, you don't have a copy of his book yet. Chapter 3: My success is not
determined by who wins elections. Besides, if Clinton is elected, Rush
will start working on his next best-seller tentatively entitled "See I
told you so!" [From RL himself on the radio.]
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		eyc@acpub.duke.edu
Biomedical Engineer 1993	Never take me too seriously.
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: alex@engr3.umbc.edu (alex)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush's editorial in the NYTimes
Date: 17 Oct 92 03:58:43 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, Baltimore County Campus


	In case you missed it, the NYTimes published an editorial written
by Rush in the Thursday edition. Rush was calling apon Bush to get mad
and tell it like it is during the debate that night. (Presumably rush
was dissapointed)

	It was straight forward enough, I suppose, but I think that Rush
should refrain from the print media - his black and white rendering of
the world looks out of place net to people who actually look at more
then one side of an issue.

	It made me think that one of the reasons for the sucess of his
radio show (and the diminished returns on his TV show) is the almost
clandestine aspect of radio. Radio is a personal thing between the host,
the listener and the listeners imagination. Without visual imagery or
the competition of a newpaper, the host can express the kind of extremes
that Rush does without having to match them up to real world events.
With nothing to compare the information to, and no visuals to corrilate,
the listener can make leaps in thought without having to worry about the
plausability of the content. It's kind of like a wispered secret - it's
so much easier to believe it if it's not actually spoken out loud.

	The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy was originally a radio show.
Later, it was repackaged as a TV series and a book, but the Radio show
was always the best - the content was so abstract that all those words and
pictures just made it harder to get into. (Yes, it was a hit in book form,
but it still best on the radio).

-- 
                               Alex Crain::UMBC Academic Computing Services
  "[PBS viewers are] affluent, highly educated, the movers and the shakers,
   the socially conscious and the well informed. What about the rest of us?"
                                                       - Robert Dole
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter)
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Originator: news@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:45:50 GMT
Organization: Gallifrey - Home of the Timelords
Keywords: Rush Liberal Media Anita Hill Clarence Thomas

In article <23860@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.012651.3652@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>> Secondly, there was no evidence to support Hill, just her claim.  When two
>> people have such radically different viewpoints of an event without 
>> corroborating evidence then we must rely on their past behavior.  Anita
>> Hill's past behavior does not jibe with her claims, she maintained a 
>> friendly relationship with the alleged sexual harrasser.
>
>Hmm... can we look at things like say a lie detector test? or maybe two
>of them? Oh -yeah - I forgot, once she passed the two lie detector
>tests she became a nut who was convinced of her story (thus the
>reason she passed the examinations) but as sadly delusional... 

A polygraph is about as reliable as a Magic 8 Ball, and considerably
harder to use.

>Strange how she was delusional years earlier when she told friends it was
>going on....

When we were *told* she told friends. Listen, only a handful of people
claim that they were told. As a socially responsible person, she should
have reported it when it happened, IF it happened. One would think that
of *all* people, an attorney in the EEO would be aware of her rights.

The problem with the whole situation was this: One person made an
allegation that CAN NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED, and all sorts of hearings
were held. People were yelling for him not to be confirmed because either
a) Anita has an honest looking face, so she couldn't possibly lie; or
b) Many people disagreed with the appointment for political reasons,
and this was an excellent excuse to try to jettison him without having
to worry about silly things like the issues.

If Anita Hill had brought her claims to a Grand Jury today or 10 years
ago, it would never have seen trial. Her word against his. Innocent
until PROVEN (*not alleged) guilty is still the docturing in the USA.

					- greg
From: mishbm@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bryon M. Mish)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush gets nailed on Columbus
Date: 15 Oct 1992 00:50:32 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: mishbm@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Bryon M. Mish)
NNTP-Posting-Host: o231-19.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu

In article <1992Oct12.205327.23041@novell.com> bboerner@novdpd.uucp  
(Brendan B. Boerner) writes:
> Rush got nailed this afternoon.
> 
> He had been railing on for a while about the Columbus issue when he
> took a call after a break from a young woman who read from what she
> claimed what Columbus' diary, completely demolishing Rush's argument.


     In an article published in the daily CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR around  
the time Rush took this call, noted that the ACTUAL C.C. Diary did not  
exist.  The only thing that exists is a purported copy of it done by a  
monk/friar/clergy-guy, twenty years or so after the voyage.  There quite  
possibly could be bogus copies of it about.  The only way to know for  
sure, is to go back to the original copy and see what it says.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh and the decline of the GOP
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 06:03:25 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes:
> In article <Bvzy9p.6GK@eis.calstate.edu>, kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> > and won re-election in an even BIGGER landslide. In 1988, Reagan said (in
> > effect) "Look, I know Bush was always a liberal, and he called my policies
> > 'voodoo economics', but he's seen the light, he's learned the truth." And
> > Bush campaigned as a conservative, and won the election. He then proceeded
> > to govern like a liberal, got in bed with Foley and "his good friend Danny
> > Rostenkowski", agreed to the biggest tax hike in HISTORY, has screwed over
> > the conservatives at every opportunity, and has played us for suckers.
> > THAT'S why Bush will lose (and I agree, he probably can't pull it out of
> > the hat this late). 
> 
> NOw this man is creative - I mean get this- Bush is a liberal!! Something
> tells me you'd need to be right of Attila the Hun to think that George 
> Bush is Liberal - I mean he has all of the classic conservative moves - 
> he's a racist, he gives tax breaks to the rich, he bashes gays, he
> tries to force his religeous views down your throat, he whines endlessly
> about abortion, he insists we're winning the war on drugs - he is classic - 
> I would think he'd be the poster child for conservatives.... uh oh - wait
> I see it now, I think he supports a woman's right to vote - I see he *is*
> a liberal after all....

We talking about the same "George Bush"? The man who said "No New Taxes",
and then signed the biggest tax hike in the nation's history? The man who
said he'd never sign a "quota bill", and then signed a civil rights bill
that practically establishes mandatory racial quotas?  The man who said he
wanted to cut down on government regulation and then DOUBLED the number of
federal regulations during his term? 

He's obviously pulled the wool over YOUR eyes, at least; look at what he
DOES, not what he SAYS. Bush didn't cut taxes on the rich; REAGAN did, and
caused an 8-year economic boom. Bush RAISED taxes, causing the current
recession, and gutting whole industries like private aircraft and
boat-building. 

I think of myself  as a conservative, but I'm really more Libertarian than
Republican; still, the "conservative" position is generally the one that
encourages MORE freedom rather than LESS. And in one way, I suppose you're
right about Bush being the conservative "poster child"; as a conservative,
he's a real cripple!

Ken Mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
From: greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Shawn Green)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:03:39 GMT

Here's my blow-hard, simplistic, brutish (and therefore aptly suited to the
alt.rush-limbaugh group) opinion on the abortion issue:

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

There.  I have spoken.  This issue will never be resolved by consensus.  If
people want to resolve it by majority-rule vote, that's fine.  I believe
most of America is pro-choice.  My only regret is that as a male, I will
most likely never have the opportunity to squash an Operation Rescue person
trying to block my entry to an abortion clinic. 

So was that bombastic and stupid enough?  Can I get a guest appearance on
Rush's show?


Shawn Green
greens@mentor.cc.purdue.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: young@ssdd475a.erim.org (Peter Young)
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
In-reply-to: gln@cs.arizona.edu's message of 14 Oct 92 19:10:31 GMT
Organization: Environmental Research Institute of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
	<1992Oct13.012651.3652@anasazi.com> <23860@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:15:04


   In article <1992Oct13.012651.3652@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
   > Secondly, there was no evidence to support Hill, just her claim.  When two
   > people have such radically different viewpoints of an event without 
   > corroborating evidence then we must rely on their past behavior.  Anita
   > Hill's past behavior does not jibe with her claims, she maintained a 
   > friendly relationship with the alleged sexual harrasser.

Unfortunately, this is one of the insidious things about sexual
harassment:  when the harasser also signs your paycheck, it can be
difficult to choose to do what should be done.
--
Peter Young
young@erim.org
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:20:18 GMT

> = (Simon E. Booth) writes:

>Perhaps I am the challenger here, but there must be others that feel the same
>way I do.   I cannot accept that I am the only person who belives that the
>unborn have a right to live.

Simon, old chap - you're most puzzling, and getting irritating.  

Besides not being able include the post you're responding to,
additionally you can't READ any posts on t.a.?  I mean, page just
through ten _articles_ and you pretty much cover the spectrum of
viewpoints.

(What is the nature of your net access?  I really don't get it.)


-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: chrisl@stpaul.gov (Chris A Lyman)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: City of Saint Paul Public Works
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:25:33 GMT

best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) does his worst:
> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>> Simon E. Booth) writes:

>>> Someone here has said that rights only apply if a fetus is aware.
>>> 
>>> Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a pregnant woman feel the child
>>> moving about??  Does that not constitute awareness??

>> The pregnant woman can also feel it when a car hits her.  Does that
>> contitute awareness for the car?

> You should have put it this way.  The pregnant woman can also feel it 
> when, while walking by the abortion clinic, she is hit in the face by
> the remains of an unviable tissue mass.

Is that what you do in your spare time, Mike?  Thanks for the confession
to assault.  Too bad it won't hold up in court.

> Of course the u.t.m. does not have awareness, especially since it was
> just killed.                                                   ^^ ^^^
  ^^^^ ^^^^^^
Gosh, you killed a fetus for the express purpose of throwing it in someone's
face?  What a twisted little shit-fer-brains you are.

-- 
Chris Lyman  /  email: chrisl@pwcs.stpaul.gov  /  #include <std.disclaimers.h>
    In America, any boy may become president and I suppose that's just one
    of the risks he takes. -- Adlai Stevenson
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7007 alt.fan.dan-quayle:5194
From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle
Subject: Re: Extra! Dan is a Genius!
Date: 9 Oct 92 21:01:05 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.

In article <92283.125335FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu>, <FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> In article <cortez.718440319@milton>, cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom
|> Warner) says:
|> >I don't believe you for a second. You know, California, press in tow,
|> >pulls over at a Burger King with a "now hiring" sign and declares
|> >that it's a sign things are "turning around in America."
|> >
|> >I am absolutely incapable of conceiving how anyone with a shred of
|> >intelligence was capable of that. He was not fumbling over words,
|> >he was not making minor factual errors, and the press did not distort
|> >it at all. Reading the detailed reports on the event that came out at
|> >the time, there was no way to conclude anything other than that Dan
|> >thought he was showing off a real economic positive -- Dan went on too
|> >long for there to have been any mistake.
|> 
|> Would you consider having _any_ job as being better than having _no_ job?
|> There are a lot of people out there who are unemployed with few marketable job
|> skills.  If all of these people went to work at a Burger King for $4 an hour,
|> how much less Welfare would we need to pay?   If you have no job, the Burger
|> King _is_ a step up.  The fact is, there are jobs available.  Whether people
|> choose to take advantage of them is another matter.
|> 
|> -Frank

Frank,

How can you characterize as a step up a job that pays dramatically 
*below* the poverty level??? $4 an hour is $8000/year (if fulltime;
most of them aren't). Takehome pay is even less. There is absolutely 
no "advantage" in taking a job that cannot support you. Yet this is 
the kind of job that our Vice President believes proves that our economy
is on the rise... 

Noblesse Oblige, I guess. Soon to become Droit Du Seigneur, if the
Republicans have four more years to complete their dismantling of the
middle class.

- Don Coolidge
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Simon Booth comes out pro-choice
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:33:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.174303.19618@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>In article <ld3flkINN2i0@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen) writes:
>>Simon E. Booth) writes:
>>|>
>>|> II think you understand at least part of what I've been trying to say.
>>|> Perhaps there are valid reason for abortion, although I'm against it.
>>|> But those reasons must be important, and other options should be examined
>>|> as well.
>>|>
>>|> Simon
>>
>>That is all pro-choice advocates are saying.  Thank you for joining.
>
>This is such crap.  Perhaps you feel this way, but the leaders of
>NOW and NARAL certainly do not.  Please watch next time any state
>tries to enact things like parental notification or waiting periods
>which just might have the chance of reducing the numbers of abortions.
>
>Ted
>--
>"Vote Democrat.  It's easier than getting a job."
>
>krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu

And remember, I am not, nor will I ever be, pro-choice.

I think it is funny the way my posting got distorted.

Thank you for your attention.

Simon

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: Ted.Schafer@bbs.rn.com (Ted Schafer)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 06:39:17 EST
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Subject: limbaugh's liberals (to bad rush isn't a liberal).....
Distribution: world
Reply-To: Ted.Schafer@bbs.rn.com (Ted Schafer)
X-Posting-Software: UniBoard 1.10b S/N 145921

i have nothing to say i just like saying limbaugh's liberal's
sound like fate to me.
******************************************************
/* all people seem to need data processing          */
******************************************************