HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: My Rush Imitation! (WAS January Surprise?
Supersedes: <93021.214845KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:16:09 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>

In article <93017.211140KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, Kurt Ludwick
<KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> says (on the 17th!!):

>I wonder:  if Saddam Hussein suddenly becomes cooperative and joins the
>'Family
>of Nations' right after Clinton's inauguration, will there be an investigation
>to see if Clinton's people paid him off to make Clinton look good in this way?
>(Wow, the second he gets inaugurated, he fixes our foreign problems! What a
> guy.)

Hey!  I posted this on the 17th, BEFORE Rush made some -very- similar comments
on this subject during today's show!  (Called for an investigation, etc...)
Therefore, he OBVIOUSLY got the idea from MY POST, thus proving that he reads
the Internet.

More specifically, he doubtlessly seeks out MY  posts on the net, because he
knows that _I_, as much as he, am on the CUTTING EDGE.

The decade (OK, week) of Ludbaugh continues.... :-) :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Pro-Choice Military (Was: Rush Military Record)
Date: 23 Jan 93 01:01:56 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

In article <C19JpB.9M5@news.cso.uiuc.edu> wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins) writes:
>
>But fundamentally you believe that it is the right of each citizen to
>personally decide which wars he is willing to fight when called upon?

The convictions at the Nuremburg trials were based on the premiss that
each member of society, including those in the armed forces, were required
to exercise due judgement and act morally, even if that action went in
the direct contradiction of military orders or law.   I.e., "I was 
only following orders" doesn't excuse a crime.

So I guess I wouldn't know if it is a right,  but it is a duty according
to that precident.

Tom Perigrin
"Quick and easy insults, low blows,  - thats our specialty"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel)
Subject: Re: 13 of 18 Clinton appointments are lawyers?!
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 05:42:46 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

>In article <schlegel.727484544@cwis> schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:
>> I find it really amazing that Clinton tells us that he will appoint a cabinet
>> that "looks like America" and that will stand for change when in fact 13 out
>> of the 18 are - LAWYERS -.  

>Thirteen out of eighteen have law degrees.  One might more properly
>ask what happened to the other five, given the importance of a law
>degree to dealing with the field of law, but let's look at Schlegel's
>objection more closely.

>All of the eighteen graduated college.  Presumably, Schlegel would wish
>that only nine of them have, and that two or three of the others have
>failed to graduate high school.

 You are assuming when you try to guess my wishes, my complaint is that
 Clinton obviously knew that he would want to hire the best educated and
 most qualified people for the job AND that this group of people would NOT
 have the same kind of demographic distribution as America in general by the
 very virtue of this high degree of experience, skill and education.  His
 claim that he would hire such a staff is another example of how Pres. Clinton
 has made a habit of saying things that sound compassionate and sensitive to
 his audience that don't make sense when thought over.
  
>Of course, then Schlegel would be complaining that Clinton wasn't trying
>to hire the most qualified candidates.

 No, I wouldn't and I did not say that either.  I would in fact be happier if
 Pres. Clinton had been more thorough in his appointment decisions, I still
 think many of his appointments are not qualified or appropriate (Bill Brown,
 Shalala, Zoe (what's her name?), and others).  Please Pres. Clinton, hire
 some cabinet members that are qualified and not necessarily Friends of Bill.
 

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Deficit
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:30:16 GMT

In article <C1Btto.Mn2@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Ted Frank (thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>: But "tax revenues" tells us too little.  If taxes are 2% of GNP, then
>: there's lots of room to expand "tax revenues."  If taxes are a huge
>: proportion of GNP, there isn't.  If we need to include GNP in the
>: equation to make the "tax revenue" ratio tell us anything, then
>: we might as well use GNP, and cut out the middleman.
>
>Tax revenues do not tell us too little.  GNP tells us too little :)
>Actually GNP tells us what tax revenues will be.  Revenues are about
>26% of GNP.  Its been that way for a long time, too.  Juggling various
>tax rates will still keep it at 26% - it just shifts the burden of
>paying the tax.

Really?  Is that 26% true across all time periods for all countries?

If you prefer to use tax revenues instead of GNP, fine.  Just recognize
that by that measure we're even better off relative to where we were in
1945, when the tax rate was lower.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13707 alt.conspiracy:14569
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 12:01:18 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Rush the Entertainer; Congress equally Entertaining
 <93019.202609KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> <C17rpI.GFJ@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
 <21726@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>

In article <21726@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, ez012344@chip.ucdavis.edu says:

>I'm not surprised Limbaugh couches his politics as entertainment. Other
>evil GOP creeps have been doing this for years. People like Hatch, Specter,
>Helms ... they're worth laughing at, but unfortunately ignorant dupes fail
>to realize that they are just kidding, and subsequently act where the
>entertainer merely mentions.

Lumping Specter in with Helms is pretty funny... he's what you call a
'moderate' Republican.  I honestly couldn't decide whether it would be worse
to send him or Lynn Yeakel to the U.S. Senate; I don't think there's a whole
lot of difference.

Oh, yeah, except that Yeakel would have been 'nicer' to that woman who tried
to destroy Clarence Thomas's career with unfounded accusations.  Only
reason I preferred Specter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
Subject: Re: AIDS Question:
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 07:23:26 GMT
Keywords: AIDS

kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:

>vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:


>>I just heard something which I would like to hear more about:

>>Jesse Helms (AGGH!! scream the liberals) quoted the Center for Disease
>>Control today as stating that the average male AIDS patient has had
>>more than FIVE HUNDRED sexual partners.  Can anyone refute or confirm 
>>this?  If in fact the CDC has come to this conclusion legitimately
>>I would be pretty startled.


>>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers  


>That would not be at all surprising.  Few people realize the incredible
>promiscuity of the male homosexual community (lesbians are apparently
>not nearly as bad in this regard).  It is not at all uncommon for a
>male homosexual to average over 100 different sexual partners in a 
>single year.  Homosexuality and prostitution are major vectors for VD
>for precisely this reason.  Hemophiliacs require a component of blood
>(Factor VIII) that makes up less than 1% of normal blood.  A pint
>of Factor VIII requires several thousand pints of blood to manufacture.
>Thus, hemophiliacs "experience" a similarly high blood contact ratio.
>IV drug users shoot up several times a day.  If they share needles on
>even half of those "shoots" they share blood contact with well over
>500 individuals a year.  The idea that AIDS is Everyman's disease is
>a pretty big lie.  Only those segments of the community that experience
>high rates of blood contacts are ever going to be seriously affected 
>by AIDS. 

>Anyone who tries to use the African example of AIDS plague is overlooking
>serious differences.  The very high rate of sickle cell anemia means
>African hospitals go through 3 times the blood volume of US hospitals
>in OB/GYN wards and transfer units.  Almost no nation tests their blood
>supply for AIDS - it would break their meager medical budget.  Promiscuity
>is much more commonly accepted in those cultures than in the US.  This
>makes any comparisons apples to oranges.

>Ditto Thailand.  Southeast Asia is legendary for rates of IV drug use
>and promiscuity.  They also have no budget for blood supply testing.

>No blood contact, no AIDS.  It's that simple.  The gay community simply
>has a tremndous amount of political force in the US, and they're 
>wielding it for all it's worth.  ONe could hazard guesses as to why they
>have this clout - it may well have somthing to do with the dominant visual
>media culture in an increasingly non-literate society.  

Thanks for you enthusiastic response, but I was hoping for something a
bit more specific with regard to how the CDC came up with this number.

Oh, could you possibly cite some sources for the above info?

>Steve Kellmeyer
>-- 

>Steve Kellmeyer 
>kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu


Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers
From: MBS110@psuvm.psu.edu (Mark 'Mark' Sachs)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Hillary (Was: What can we expect....)
Date: 28 Jan 93 07:57:11 GMT
 <C1Jy92.EFq@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: The Leader Desslok School of Diplomacy

In article <C1Jy92.EFq@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () says:
>Can anyone see how this scenario relates to President Hillary?  Hillary
>is now in charge of the single largest item in the federal budget.
>The American people did NOT vote for her to have any authority whatsoever
>in our government.

The American people did not vote for George Stephanopoulos to be White
House communications director, either. What's your point?

     "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets."
[Your blood pressure just went up.]        Mark Sachs IS: mbs110@psuvm.psu.edu
   DISCLAIMER: Penn State University cares about my money, not my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: DC Myth # 302 :  A tax increase will lower the deficit
Keywords: taxes, deficit, lower
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 03:29:38 GMT

In article <C1JI84.7Cu@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>  Why do people inside the beltway still believe a tax increase will lower
>the deficit?  The following numbers would dispute this:
>
>         Year             Federal Taxes per person
>
>        1983                    $2,490
>     
>        1993                    $4,438     ( projected )
>
>( from a Tax Foundation report , Sept 1992 )
>
>   Of course, while the tax burden nearly doubled, the deficit spireled       
>through the roof.  

Gee, you didn't happen to mention that inflation nearly doubled also in the
same time period, did you?  Naaaah.  

>[ no need to flame Reagan/Bush, they tried to decrease
>spending, but Congress wouldn't do it ]

Why do you pose such a canard?  Bush asked for *more* spending than
Congress actually approved on *every* *single* *budget*.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: rush videos
Keywords: rush videos
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:05:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.182501.11638@samba.oit.unc.edu> grife@ils.unc.edu (Eric C. Griffith) writes:
>As regular listeners to RL may know, Rush sells some videotapes of his 
>"Rush to Excellence" concert performances.  I believe that three of
>these tape exist so far.  Does anyone out there have these videos, and
>if so, could you give any recommendations to someone interested in 
>buying just one (i.e. the best one) of these tapes?

The absolute best, IMHO, is Rush III - it includes shots of Rush's 
family, and is the best in terms of production values. However, since
Rush III is $24.95, and all three videos are sold together for $39.95,
it would be worth it to shell out the extra $15. (again, IMHO)
-- 
John Switzer             | 1/21/93 - Clinton fails to follow through on promise
                         | to have economic legislation ready the day after the
Compuserve: 74076,1250   | Inauguration. Programmers rejoice because he gives 
Internet: jrs@netcom.com | them an excuse to further slip their schedules.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
From: matt@cray.com (Matthew Marchese)
Subject: Re: God is intolerant of sin!
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 21 Jan 93 03:22:47 CST

In article <gPkmXB3w165w@major.panix.com> dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea) writes:
>twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>
>> In article <1993Jan14.210240.1902@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galile
>> 
>> >This assumes that homosexuality is a natural sexual nature.  I do not conced
>> >this point. 
>> 
>> Then don't raise it.  The "natural" argument is a strawman.
>
>I actually find the "natural" argument rather amusing. The most common
>version of it is "animals don't do it, so...".. I can only assume that
>since dogs lick their balls in public, it must be acceptable for people
>to do similarly.
>
>
Well, you know the old joke; most of us would do it if we could 
only reach...:)

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

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: amck@rowdy.mcc.com (Alan McKendree)
Subject: Re: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!! -- Too late.
Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:09:59 GMT

She withdrew.

-- 
Alan McKendree          Opinions posted by me are mine, only.
amck@rowdy.mcc.com         Who/Little Feat/racquetball/Rand
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:54:26 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Look in Webster's under "Straw Man," and you'll see this:

In article <1993Jan21.154312.17401@news.nd.edu>, fdeck@vyasa.helios.nd.edu
(francis deck) says:

>Our poor helpless RL can't get his TV show aired during the day.
>Boo Hoo Hoo.  The reason is that there is some big conspiracy
>to suppress his ideas.  Everyone is out to hurt poor little
>RL.  You can't see me right now, but big crocodile tears are
>running down my face.

>Of course, the station managers are not acting in their self-
>interest as we'd expect conservative capitalists to do.  Oh no.
>They are left wing commie big business bad evil, which explains
>why the radio stations that they also own are happy to air RL's
>talk show during the day.  Besides, the airwaves are regulated
>by the government, which also explains why RL has no trouble
>getting his radio show aired.

>Perhaps the TV stations think that the kind of people who would
>watch RL's show are more likely to be up during the night, and
>that the people who traditionally advertise on his radio show,
>e.g. home-study literacy programs, would pay the station more
>$$$ if the show were on during the night.  But no... that would
>require the station managers to be capitalists.

Go ahead, look it up for yourselves! :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Kurt  E.  Ludwick     | If PRO is the opposite of CON, then
 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -|
 kel111@psuvm.psu.edu  |             what's the opposite of Progress...?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: The hidden costs of Environmentalism : A case study
Keywords: r-12, cars, big bucks
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:59:01 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>>  I am not against protecting the environment, but should we have to pay
>>this type of cost?  Why didn't someone figure out a way to lower the cost
>>before they implemented the regulations?

    If the alternatives already cost less then they wouldn't have needed 
a regulation, now would they?

>Hey, you can pay the cost either in regulating freon usage so it doesn't
>leak and kill the ozone, or you can pay the cost with the extra risk of
>cancer to the next ten thousand generations.  Your call.  

    Careful with your numbers there, Ted. Ten thousand generations is a 
long time. At 20 years a pop the whole history of the US since 1776 is 
only about a dozen generations, and there have been scarcely 200 
generations since the formation of the first cities in Lower Mesopotamia.

    I agree with you that freon has a substantial negative environmental 
impact, but you've tied that fairly reasonable scientific appraisal to a 
prediction that is, at best, wildly speculative. IMHO it's best to leave 
extremist rhetoric to the Pros. Let Rush handle it.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
From: shapiro@cfsctc.enet.dec.com (Steve Shapiro)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Promises, Promises
Date: 21 Jan 93 14:14:43 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation - Marlboro, MA
Organisation: SKS Computer Consulting, Inc.


In article <31711@nntp_server.ems.cdc.com>, msnyder@uchost.UUCP (Michael
Snyder,000,0000,0000000) writes...

>And what's wrong with carefully following the track record?
>Gotta start sometime, why not now?

For quite some time now I have wanted someone to produce such lists and hold
our elected officials to the items on the list.

Whether it is the president a senator, congressman or even just a local
legislator, I believe that their campain statements, assertions, promises, etc.
should be enumerated and made public in a manner such as Rush has done. 

We as the citizenry should then evaluate the performance of these elected
officials based on their ability to deliver what they promised.

As an analogy, as an employee of a company, your performance is evaluated and
based on that performance, you get a raise, benefits, bonus, etc. You are held
accountable for your responsibilities. Same should be for the politician. Hold
them accountable.

As was indicated in a previous post, hindsight is 20/20. I can understand that
things look differently when you are outside the loop because you may not have
all of the facts for a fully informed decision. 

Personally I don't want ALL of the promises to be kept. When I evaluate Clinton
in about 3.5 years, I will look at what he DID and DID NOT do.

I am glad for his flip on the Haitian issue because I believe that it was an
inappropriate promise in the first place. So it goes.

I remember 4 years ago when Bush was elected and he did some flips shortly
coming to office and used the excuse that he didn't realize the full extent of
some things. The thing that floored me was that he had been vice president for
the preceeding 8 years, and if HE didn't know the full extent of the things he
was promising, then something was definitely wrong. 

Well, so it goes. Politics as usual. Change? Hah! I'll be lucky if I even have
any change in my pockets after all of the tax increases which are being
proposed are signed into law.

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  *
*******************************************************************/
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13903 talk.politics.misc:69945
From: kaldis@romulus.rutgers.edu (Theodore A. Kaldis)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Trivial" Felonies (Was: Zoe Baird, Support Her !!!!!!!!!!)
Date: 26 Jan 93 12:07:03 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <ATAYLOR.93Jan24152617@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:

> Mark Sachs:

>> I say that by Zoe Baird withdrawing we have the right thing but for
>> the wrong reasons.  The immigration law stuff is wrong, true, but
>> fairly trivial.

> Thanks for this assertion, Sachs. I was unaware that Federal FELONIES
> were "fairly trivial".

[Not to defend Zoe Baird, but] according to what I heard, Baird's
violations were only misdemeanors.
-- 
The views expressed herein are   ||  Theodore A. Kaldis
my own only.  Do you seriously   ||  kaldis@remus.rutgers.edu
believe that a major university  ||  {...}!rutgers!remus.rutgers.edu!kaldis
as this would hold such views??? ||
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14135 talk.abortion:58507