HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dos@major.panix.com (Dave O'Shea)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sexuality
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:25:57 EST
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department

thatcher@vcd.hp.com (Garen Thatcher) writes:

> The dilema:
> Recently, laws have been passed concerning the health care worker
> (that's me) and aids. I have had extensive HIB and HIV/Aids training.
> (Yes, you can get HIV from Saliva....but you need to drink about
> a quart of the stuff) We have been issued protective gloves and goggles
> and are expected to wear them at all calls we go on. The funny thing is,
> I love this kind of casual care that I get to give, but I am about to 
> leave the team because of the fact that I may get infected. With my girls
> to worry about, this is a risk I am not sure I am willing to take.

Understandable, but being educated about AIDS, you should realize that
the risks are pretty small; I'd venture a guess that you're more likely
to get killed in a car accident than by accidental AIDS infection.

> The amazing thing is that all the laws today are mainly protecting the
> Aids victim. Example: I know that you have AIDS. You get hurt, and my 
> partner is taking care of you. It is illegal for me to tell you about
> your condition. I have to let my partner take his own chance as to 
> your infectious disease.

Let me get this straight: You want to perform an HIV antibody test while
the guy is laying on the floor bleeding, right?
 
> I am quickly turning synical about this. I am now to the point where
> if I see a traffic accident and if there is a sitution where if I could
> give care and save a persons life, I am going to drive on and let the 
> person die rather than take the chance that this person may be clean.

Good lord, man, have you never heard of hepatitus? Or any of the other
dozen or so diseases that you're far more likely to contract than AIDS?
Don't you take precautions to avoid contact with EVERYBODY's body
fluids?

Considering that you seem to be relatively uninformed about the dangers
of communicable diseases, perhaps it would be best if you did as you
suggested, and find another occupation.

> Just some thoughts, but some that seemed to belong near a discussion
> about Aids, Rush, Sexuallity. 

Hate AIDS, Love Rush, sex is great. What else is on your mind?


--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
                                                 - P.J. O'Rourke
From: uelmenm@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: RUSH SHAKES BOOTY!
Date: 25 Jan 93 21:20:56 -0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Georgetown University

I think Rush needs to discover disco.
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 12:07:26 CST
From: Wesley Bielinski <U53734@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Dittoheads

I'm new to this group (actually I just found it yesterday).  I've been
listening and watching Rush (as often as I can) since a few weeks
before the election.  I still have not been able to figure out just what
DITTO's means.  Can someone, KINDLY, enlighten me.  Thank you.

Wesley J. Bielinski                    | "I love my country,
SGT, USAR       U53734@uicvm.uic.edu   |   it's CLINTON I fear!"
12th Special Forces Group (Airborne)   |     Support RKBA
Veteran of Desert Shield/Storm/Calm    |      Crime control.. NOT Gun Control
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Supposed Bentsen Quote
Keywords: 4 names
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:44:03 GMT

tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>Today Rush played (twice at least) what he claimed was the recorded voice
>of an interview with Senator Lloyd Bentsen, now Secretary of the Treasury.
>In this supposed recording, a voice said something on the order of
>"Those middle class voters will fall for a lie about tax cuts every time."

>Was this really Bentsen's voice, and did he really say this to mean
>this, or was it taken out of context?  (i.e. Did Bentsen really
>say something like "[The republicans believe that] those middle class..."?)

    Relax, Tom, it was just Rush being his typical substantive self - 
making up things that he wished his opponents had said and then making 
recordings of a caller who sound vaguely like Bentsen saying the things 
Rush made up.

>Prepared to be aghast, but I've been lied to with misquotes before...

    Now, now. You know that Rush would never lie to you.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,uiuc.politics,alt.politics.elections
From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: What's in a democracy? (Was: Campaign funding a joke
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,uiuc.politics,alt.politics.elections
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:13:31 GMT

Tim Spila {Romulan} (tspila@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: In article <C17owo.EH6@news.cso.uiuc.edu> kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
: >
: >   Just because we have the technical capacity does not mean it is a good
: >idea.  The public gets far too rapped up and emotional over issues, and
: >a more delibrate process is necessary.  
: >
: So, what could be a good deliberate process?  I agree that people get
: rapped up in issues, but they also tend to be stubborn as well.  Will
: any deliberate process help either of these things?
: 
: I guess the point I am trying to make is:  Do we have a government that
: rules by what the population says it wants?  OR Do we have a government
: that rules by what "it" thinks is good for the population?  Also, which
: is truely better?
: 
: Tim.

I agree with you, tim.  But for sure there is somewhere in between these
two extremes.  Obviously, we don't want to vote on every law or on every
disgressionary spending bill.  On the other hand, if the government wants
to issue a new tax, I'd like to vote on it.  Same goes for big borrowing
bills...
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Dittoheads
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 01:13:49 GMT

Wesley Bielinski <U53734@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>I'm new to this group (actually I just found it yesterday).  I've been
>listening and watching Rush (as often as I can) since a few weeks
>before the election.  I still have not been able to figure out just what
>DITTO's means.  Can someone, KINDLY, enlighten me.  Thank you.

"Ditto:  This developed as a timesaving greeting from listeners who would
formerly waste valuable broadcast seconds praising me and the show.  The New
York Times has declared that Ditto is shorthand for, "You're wonderful,
Rush, you're the best host I've ever heard.  Don't ever go away."

	- Rush Limbaugh
	  The Way Things Ought to Be

|===========================================================================|
|Don Wiggins, German-Irish-American    | Success is getting what you want.  |
| & Advance Scout for the Baby Boomers | Happiness is wanting what you get. |
|Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner        |
|===========================================================================|
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13364 talk.politics.misc:69034
From: steve@celia.UUCP (Steve Tyree)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Conservative Values (Re: New group proposal:  alt.conservative.f
Date: 20 Jan 93 20:13:17 GMT
Reply-To: celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree)
Organization: Rhythm & Hues, Inc., Hollywood

In article <P73JXB10w165w@unkaphaed.gbdata.com> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
 
->Congratulations.  This is one of the few Posts by an admitted Republican 
->on this group in a LONNNNNNNG time that has approached our 12 year long 
->economic disaster with sense.  You are right, the neocon revolution 
->displaced common sense with a "there is a free lunch" delusion.  The 
->Laffer Curve demonstrated by Jack Kemp to Reagan on the back of a dinner 
->napkin.  The dinner napkin that destroyed our economy.

 The problem with that curve is that the media misinterpreted it. It has
a peak. The big government types seem to forget that.
 Maybe you should listen to President Clinton, He stated in his acceptance
speech that we have the strongest economy in the world. Now that the campaign
is over, many media elites are "reassessing" the Reagan years. The truth hurts
so badly I must .......

 Steve Tyree - These opinions are mine and mine alone.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:14022 talk.abortion:58266
From: regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: control
Date: 27 Jan 93 17:12:20 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard, San Diego Division
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdde.sdd.hp.com

In article <1993Jan27.162005.22316@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>In article <1k6bmsINNg34@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com> regard@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com (Adrienne Regard) writes:
>>I am vitally concerned that you would reduce me to a subclass of both
>>citizen and human being.
>This seems to me to be precisely as valid as claiming that
>requiring me to register for the draft reduces men to less-than-people.
>Certainly, I would say that if your argument wrt abortion has force,
>then conscription reduces men to less than people.


I would agree.

I think conscription *does* reduce men to less than people.

I would point out, though, that there is a standing constitution amendment
that permits it, though, which would need to be overcome to remove the
possibility of conscription.  Whereas there is no such amendment WRT fetal
life.  And there may be an amendment soon WRT reproductive choice.

So the practical problems related to the two situations aren't the same.

Adrienne Regard
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Facts on Gays and Sexual Promiscuity
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 22:39:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan28.072352.17320@mic.ucla.edu> rush@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu (Brian Rush ) writes:
>In article <74490@cup.portal.com> Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com writes:
>>doc931/gayprom.txt
>>Are Gays Promiscuous? (More Politely - have more sexual partners on
>>average than heterosexuals?)
>
>[tons of stats about gays deleted]
>
>since you are on this subject, you (and everyone who claims to know a
>lot about this subject) should read a book titled something like
>'Kinsey, Sex, and Lies'.  The author gives a lot of interesting stats.
>Among others, he mathematically and conclusively proves many of Kinsey's
>stats to be intentional lies, such as the #gays=10% figure.  He then
>proves that it is between 1-4% of americans within ~99% confidence, and
>1-2% within ~90% confidence, or something like that.  Most gays leaders

As Benjamin Disraeli said a century ago, there are three types of
lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Shame, shame. You ought
to know that statistics never, ever "mathematically and conclusively
" prove anything. The 90% confidence is just that. That, based upon
our number of people surveyed, we can say that, assuming normality,
the true per centage of gays will be covered by this region 9 out
of ten times. It certainly supports the belief that <10% are gay
But, unfortunately, you are using statistics the way that
a drunk uses a lamp-post. For support rather than illumination.

>COUNTED, is 41 years.  that's a fact. the reason is up to
>interpretation. either Kinsey or the person who told me this alleges
>that it shows how gays practice deviate behavior and are in general
>messed up people. Read the book before you try to refute it's stats.

Again. Statistics prove nothing. You ought to know the old saw
that correlation does not imply causation.


--
 !         \                                                                    !      1------1                     
 !\     1______1            __1__     "And my mind was filled with wonder,
 ! \    1______1      /   ____1____    when the evening headlines read:
 !      !   \        / /  1__|_|__1    'Richard Cory went home last night,
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: I guess there are no human beings...
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 14:41:25 PST

   It has been established in previous notes that:

(a)  Outlawing abortion reduces women to sub-human status, and
(b)  Conscription reduces men to sub-human status.


   Therefore...*no one* is human.  We're all wasting our time here talking
about "human societies" and "human rights."

   I guess I'll just take my ball and go home.


Tim Irvin
**************************************************************************
government out of the womb
government out of the bedroom
government out of my wallet

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: House Bill 4848 - Any News?
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 07:58:18 PST

In <1993Jan21.022825.7863@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, Larry W. Seals writes:

>There was some discussion before the election of a bill sponsored by R.
>Gephardt (sp?) which on the surface seemed to be some social program for
>senior citizens but had a provision  in it for lowering the ceiling on
>the amount exempted for federal estate taxes from $600,000 to $200,000
>(can't take it with you :-) and raising the rate to as much as 50% in
>certain cases.  I believe the bill was HB 4848 and was being held up in
>committee by Gephardt until after the election.

The spelling of Gephardt is correct.  Anyway, I've called the office of my
Congressman, Norm Mineta (D-CA since 1974), and his staff assured me that he's
opposed to the bill as is.  I was told by his staff that he would gladly
vote for HR 4848 if the estate tax provision wasn't in it.  I had heard that
Congress was working on a new version without the estate tax, but maybe with
Clinton's ascendancy, they'll just pass it and send it on.  It would certainly
add a new meaning to Clinton's plan to soak those earning "over $200,000."

"Soak the rich?"  Right.  How much is this going to hurt a $5,000,000 estate?
How much will this hurt (say) a $500,000 estate?  Most middle class Americans
can obtain a $500,000 net worth by the time they're retired.  This tax will
hurt the middle class more than the rich.  If it were only "soak the rich,"
they would keep (or even raise) the exemption limit of $600,000 and merely
increase the rate above that exemption.  If Congress sends HR 4848 to Clinton
and he signs it, then we can taunt Clinton supporters with "I won't raise
taxes on the middle class" just as they bashed Bush about "read my lips."

In any event, it's business as usual in Congress.  Screw up an otherwise
perfectly good bill--who could be against providing long term care for needy
seniors?--by adding unreasonable and punishing clauses in it.  Why?  They
know damn well that even the most liberal Democrats in Congress wouldn't
pass this estate tax hike by itself, so we sugar coat it with "long-term
care for seniors" to make it more palatable.  The pork rolls on...


Tim Irvin
****************************************************************************
"Schutzstaffel!"   Blam!   Blam!   Blam!   "Mein Leben!"
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13672 alt.rush-limbaugh:15013
From: kebarnes@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: BO'S POEM (was poem on 1/21/93)
Date: 23 Jan 93 22:09:12 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <C19KxE.DG7@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>,
khartoum@fugue.cc.purdue.edu (Khartoum) writes:

> Could someone please copy the poem down that ? Snerdley read last night
> and e-mail it to me.
> 
> khartoum@fugue.cc.purdue.edu
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Trey
> 
> Long live Rush

I'll do better than that.   Here 'tis:

SIR WILLIAM RUSHES IN
by James Golden, a.k.a. "Bo Snerdley" +

Surrounded by splendor
befit for a king
with pomp and sheer arrogance
Sir William marched in

As Hollywood stars
sang his praises with joy
the news anchor"persons"
saluted "their boy"

But amid all the hoopla
with courage to change
are "promises" broken
and "goals" rearranged

A jog before breakfast
a snack before lunch
let's stop by the White House
it's waffles for lunch

His cabinet offers
a chance to see why
the best or the brightest
don't need to apply

A quota will do it
a "look" for success
don't worry about it
we'll hire some
illegal immigrant
to clean up this mess

A middle class tax break
a deficit cut?
forget that I said it!
the Bush numbers went up!
(slightly)

The Haitians are coming
they think I said what!
No! You fellows stay home!
you're just **** out of luck

Now don't get your hopes up
all that talk about health care
it wasn't a "promise"
it's just a "goal" that we share

Say AlGore don't pout
you'll be kept "in the know"
so long as you remember
Hillary's running this show!

Go play with those wackos
who love spiking trees
or write legislation
bring big business to its knees

The left-leaning liberals
they're all filled with Hope
while the rest of us wonder
has Fate pulled a joke?

But fear not this nightmare
of Clinton and Gore
this nation has suffered
a Carter before

But this time it's different
there's a voice on the right
on radio by day
and T.V. at night
(except in Washington, D.C.)

So when the Democrats attempt
a huge spending spree
this time we'll have Rush Limbaugh
telling them the Way Things Ought To Be!

(+ Untitled poem aired 
1/21/93 on Rush's T.V. show)


You're welcome,
-- 
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg.      * Conservative libertarians     *
* \'  KEBARNES@memstvx1.memst.edu    *      for Pro-Balance!         *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,711@compuserve.com**********************
"When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President;
I'm beginning to believe it."--Clarence Darrow
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Even Bush needed 2 years to break "Read My Lips"...
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:39:04 PST

   We already knew that "invest" is a buzzword for "spend."

   Now we're learning that promises are just "goals."

   We've learned that $18 billion (about 5% of the deficit) is reason enough
to backpedal from plans to cut the deficit in half over four years.  They
won't even set the goal of cutting it by 45% (50% - 5%) now.

   George Mitchell clearly stated that there is no intention to pass a middle
class tax cut on the Today Show this morning.  Surprise, surprise.  I never
fell for the charade.

   Did you really believe that a modern-day Democrat would cut *anyone's*
taxes?  I'd have no problem if Clinton said "I'm not going to cut anyone's
taxes because we need the revenue to trim the deficit."  I would support such a
position.  But he lied to us.

   Jeeze...as much as Bush broke his promise with "Read My Lips," it at least
took him almost two years to do it.

   My vote for Andre Marrou is looking better and better every day.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"Schutzstaffel!"   Blam!   Blam!   Blam!   "Mein Leben!"
From: jj6707@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (John E Jablonski)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Blythe and Quayle
Date: 26 Jan 93 21:52:28 GMT
Organization: CCSO College of Engineering Workstations

I know this isn't related to much happening now, but Bill Clinton gave a speech
in St Louis over the summer (I forget the date) and he closed with the
following:
 
   "Give Al Gore and I a chance!"

Boy, and people said Dan Quayle was stupid.
From: ck049@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Peter S. McPhee)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Inauguration $$$$$
Date: 21 Jan 1993 10:14:30 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: ck049@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Peter S. McPhee)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) says:

>    Actually, the companies that are shelling out the money for this affair 
>are counting, and they will expect to be taken care of for their financial
>contributions.  This type of government - business interaction must stop
>for the health of our political system.  And, no, I don't expect taxpayers
>to pick up the expenses.  I expect inaugurations to be MUCH smaller.
>
  Aw, come on. Thirty million isn't a terribly large sum for such an
extraordinary event as the inauguration of a new President. It would be
worth 100 million if it could overcome even part of the cynicism and
disdain that people have for government and just make inauguration week a
feel-good week. It is a big deal to get a new President. And remember...
Dont' stop thinking about tomorrow; yesterday's gone.
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: William Jefferson ________ Clinton
Keywords: 4 names
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:46:00 GMT

In article <C17pss.F4w@news.cso.uiuc.edu> cs125c38@dcl-nxt01 (cs125 student) writes:
>kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:
>
>
>>   Rush said on one of his TV shows that Bill had 4 names just like
>>George Herbert Walker Bush.  Is there any truth to this?  Would be
>>funny if true, considering all the heat George took over 4 names.
>
>
>He had it legally changed.  It used to be William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

I thought that he was born William Jefferson Blythe IV, after his great
grandfather (and I assume grandfather and father). When the elder Blythe
died (divorced?) and his mother remarried, he took the last name of 
his step-father. I don't know if that means he got rid of the Blythe or
just added Clinton to it.
-- 
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 now 
Internet: jrs@netcom.com | gives them an excuse to further slip their schedules.
From: cs125c38@dcl-nxt01 (cs125 student)
Subject: Re: William Jefferson ________ Clinton
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:29:15 GMT
Keywords: 4 names

kkopp@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (koppenhoefer kyle cramm) writes:


>   Rush said on one of his TV shows that Bill had 4 names just like
>George Herbert Walker Bush.  Is there any truth to this?  Would be
>funny if true, considering all the heat George took over 4 names.

>   
>   Another question about Bill:  From what I understand, his educational
>history is as follows.  Prep School, Georgetown University (undergrad), Yale
>(law school).  Is this right?  If so, doesn't sound like a man of the people
>to me.


He had it legally changed.  It used to be William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

-- MJM
From: jj6707@meibm31.cen.uiuc.edu (John E Jablonski)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: RACISM IS OVER!!
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:13:24 GMT
Organization: CCSO College of Engineering Workstations


Did anyone see McNeil/Lehrer News hour Tuesday night?  They showed a clip
from the head of the National Urban League (I think. I didn't catch his name,
John something?) where he said that racism had ended in this country.  As early
as Nov 4 (!) attitudes had changed.

Do you know what this means?????

We don't need affirmative action programs anymore!  This is the BEST news I've
heard in 12 years!  Just by his very presense, Bill J. Blythe Clinton has
defeated the greatest evil in America!

AMAZING!


---John