HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: My religion is great, yours is Bullshit
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:07:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <1992Aug12.201016.8885@umbc3.umbc.edu> alex@umbc4.umbc.edu (Alex S. Crain) writes:
>
>	I was interested to hear Rush poking fun at an Ill. state prisoner
>who is suing the state, claiming that the state has denied his him religous
>freedom. I would expect Rush to be a staunch defender of the indivuals
>rights, claiming family values and all that. After all, if family values
>and a christian education can save the country, then religion should 
>certainly be favorable in a prison environment.
>
>	I guess family values only includes the cool religions.

I missed this... could you or someone be more specific?  Was it like he
wasn't allowed to pray or that his "religion" meant making his bunkie
a cigarette girl?

My first impression though is that this is not inconsistent because, once
convicted, a person loses various natural rights (see the Social Contract 
by Rousseau) as is plainly evident by their lack of freedom due to iron bars
or by their lack of life due to the death penalty or their lack of property
due to fines and confiscation.  

>-- 
>Anybody who agrees with me deserves what they get.

Not to worry, I have yet to agree with you :)


Mike Best
{mcdphx|asuvax}!anasaz!best
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: roberts@triton.unm.edu (Robert Smathers)
Subject: Re: Rush Limbaugh Radio Stations -- so far
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 03:55:56 GMT
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Distribution: na


let me just say thanks for the response of stations.  

Recently I found out that a complete list is located in the FAQ
for this newsgroup.  If you see errors in that list, please email
the FAQ author with corrections.  It appears very complete (super job!)
and I would be surprised if very many stations were not listed.

Robert
roberts@triton.unm.edu

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: clmn@quads.uchicago.edu (Bill Coleman)
Subject: Re: EIB Special Report
Summary: Sure Beats Abortion, Doesn't It
Reply-To: clmn@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Department of Economics
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:18:28 GMT

In article <Bstqp8.HK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tbuckley@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Tim Buckley) writes:
>>>>A guy called in today and questioned him about his lies and non-truths.
>>>>He really laid it in there about the EIB BUILDING too.  BTW, there is no
>>>>EIB BUILDING!                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>    I'm crushed. Now ain't that a bitch? Next thing you know somebody will 
>>come along and try to tell me there isn't any Santa Claus either...
>>
>>    Hey, I *do* take him seriously, but Mitch has got me wondering. Could 
>>it be that the "Golden Microphone" isn't really made of gold? Could it be 
>>that the prestigious "Attila the Hun" chair is actually just a seat? All my 
>>castles in the air are tumbling down, and the day isn't even half over. 
>>(Don't ya hate it when that happens?)
>
>I break in with a SPECIAL REPORT:  An further investigation into the
>lies being perpetrated by Rush has uncovered these new startling and
>distrurbing facts.  Please have your children leave the room.  This is a
>family values newsgroup. 
>
>There is no Rush Museum.  AND PLEASE SIT DOWN FOR THIS ONE, PLEASE:
>Rush occasionally DOES use both halves of his brain.

Now, really, doesn't this beat endless rants about abortion, Bill Clinton,
taxes, media bias, and all the other posts which divert us from the big
picture questions such as:  Who is Melvin Snerdley?  When does Kiki come
back from maternity leave?  What forces Rush to use the other side of his
brain???



-- 
Bill Coleman
clmn@midway.uchicago.edu
From: kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski)
Subject: Re: A fine opporitunity for flaming liberal flameage
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont, CO
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:36:15 GMT

While reading article <1992Aug13.042509.4904@lsil.com>, I noticed that
mitch@lsil.com said the following:
>I read an article somewhere regarding the newspaper print media's recommendations
>in the past three presidential elections.  An overwhelming majority recommended
>the republican ticket.  I know our local rags, San Jose Mercury and San Francisco
>Chronicle are quite conservative and have always backed the conservative ticket.

Is this the same San Jose Mercury News that I couldn't stand reading because
they couldn't keep their liberal bias to the editorial page?  The same SJMN
that's vehemently pro-choice?  That enthused over Dukakis over and over again
in 1988?  Unless things have changed quite a bit since 1990, I wouldn't call
the Merc conservative at all...
-- 
| William Kucharski, Solbourne Computer, Inc.     | Opinions expressed above
| Internet: kucharsk@solbourne.com   Ham: N0OKQ   | are MINE alone, not those
| Snail Mail: 1900 Pike Road, Longmont, CO  80501 | of Solbourne Computer, Inc.
| President, "Just the Ten of Us" Fan Club        | "Dittos from Longmont, CO"
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Media Bias
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:33:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

gln@cs.arizona.edu (Gary L. Newell) writes:
:krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
:> adamsr@netcom.com (Rick Adams) writes:
:> >	PRO = Favoring or supporting.
:> >	CHOICE = The power or right to choose.
:> 
:> BONK!  Wrong answer.  At least as far as the leaders of PP, NOW and NARAL 
:> are concerned.  All of there actions point in the direction of encouraging 
:> as many abortions to be performed as possible.  If they were indeed in 
:> favor of "choice" then they would not be opposed to fully-informing the 
:> pregnant woman of the condition of her perspective offspring.
:
:BZZZZZZZZTTTT!!!! Wrong Answer Ted! I think there are a couple of simple points
:that you have let slip by. For example, allowing a woman to *choose* to be, as
:you put it, "fully informed" is something that I believe many pro-choice folks
:would not mind at all - perhaps asking her if she would like to see the 
:presentation would meet the needs of both groups right? or are you saying
:that pro-lifers want/need to *force* a woman to undergo this form of state-
:induced education. Also, there is the obvious sexist, hidden agenda in your
:view which implies that women are somehow incapable of understanding the
:situation and must therefore be educated into the views of the pro-life
:movt.

No buzzers, please. I'll get into a cardiac arrest! :)

The question is "fully informed" about what? The "gag order" says that
federally-funded family planning clinics (I don't want to delve into
details. There was already a string about Title IX and so on.) could not
present abortion as an option for family planning.
	The perception I have about being "fully informed" when it comes
to unplanned pregnancy is that a woman who has sex and unexpectedly gets
pregnant and wants to get rid of the baby needs to be fully informed of
her options to get rid of the baby, NOT to plan a family. Why wasn't the
woman (and man with whom copulation was performed) fully knowledgeable
about the possibility of getting pregnant before sex? About birth
control (and its failures)? About AIDS? Being "fully informed" about sex
beforehand is a whole lot less expensive than being "fully informed"
with regards to pregnancy and abortion.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% for health
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:44:33 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 18082@athena.cs.uga.edu, tedr@athena.cs.uga.edu (Ted Kalivoda) writes:
>In article <nate.462@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>>    How about a capital gains cut for long term investment (leaving the 
>>current rate for short term investments)? 
>>Nathan Engle
>If my memory serves me, Japan and Germany have NO capital gains tax.

One other point I left out before regarding Japan, the income tax rates
in both Japan and Germany are considerably above 50% (closer to 70%)
which certainly make's the US tax rate of 31% look very cheap.

---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
From: JHARTLEY@cmsa.gmr.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton's Tax Increases - A Little Truth
Date: 13 Aug 92 12:59:43 GMT
Organization: GM Research Labs

In article <1992Aug11.162155.20722@afterlife.ncsc.mil>
acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams) writes:
>While I'm not trying to say that Bill Clinton has _never_ raised taxes
>in Arkansas, the 128 tax increases figure is _rubbish_.

According to the Citizens for Tax Justice, a taxpayers' advocacy group,
(how the hell do we join?), the Republicans did indeed reach their total
by double counting some taxes and including some trivial tax increases,
such as hunting license fees.

However, they also noted that Clinton himself pushed for and got several
sales tax increases.  Furthermore, Arkansas' tax system is regressive in
their terms and that the heaviest burden is carried by middle and low
income families.

It is bad enough to have a spineless Bush in there barely able to battle
the spend-crazed Democratic congress.  Having a president who also wants
to raise taxes at the drop of a hat is not an improvement.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 18:12:17 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: usa
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1817@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>
> Like the rights of the unborn child.
>
> Look I was hoping to avoid debating abortion. This issue has been taking up
>a lot of net badwidth. When I saw the issue of government determining when
>life starts I thought I would enter the debate. I would prefer to debate
>the issue of Big Government determining when life starts without getting
>into the choice or abortion issue. Is that possible ?
>

So debate it.  You seem to be the one who is injecting abortion into the
discussion.  I'm trying very hard to keep the discussion abstract (hence
examples involving the speed of light and shooting persons of a certain
age).  For some reason, you think this magical "vote" you're going to
have is going to serve some useful purpose.  It isn't, plain and simple,
because just because enough people saying "it is so" ain't gonna make
it necessarily so.

I keep asking the question, "What if the 'vote' you propose goes against
your beliefs?", and you have yet to answer.  I suspect it's because you
have no answer.

I reiterate: We need some *objective* criteria for resolving this issue.
Votes and religious dogma aren't objective.  Will you agree that the
government *must* necessarily get involved here?  Even if they do what
you want and say "it's a person at conception", they're involved.  Right
now, they're involved to the point of saying in the first trimester of
pregnancy, it's a personal decision.  They can, and very likely will,
change that at some point.  At which point enough people will get pissed
off and pressure the government to change it back.  Until we get some
*logical* scientific perspective involved, it'll never go away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
                   ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu (William M. Porter)
Subject: Re: Buchanan's speech
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 09:20:00 GMT

In an earlier posting, I asserted that Ms. Clinton's views are being
simplified, but NOT distorted. In a followup, Ted Kalivoda asks a good and
responsible question:

TK> Let us settle this once and for all. I am no Clinton supporter, but
TK> did Hillary really liken marriage to slavery? All of the networks
TK> said this was not true after analyzing Buchannan's speech. No one
TK> deserves to have words put in their mouth, or to be taken out of
TK> context. Perhaps Hillary was saying that being married to a
TK> candidate was like being a slave? Which is probably true in many
TK> respects. But what did she say and where is the source?

I have wanted for the last several weeks to get to the library for the complete
texts of the couple controversial articles, but unlike Mr. Limbaugh, I am not
getting paid to do the job of the media for them. I doubt it will settle
anything "once and for all," but here is the excerpt presently at issue, as
quoted in "The American Spectator," August 1992, p. 29:

HRC> The basic rationale for depriving people of rights in a dependency
HRC> relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or
HRC> undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and
HRC> consequently need social institutions specifically designed to
HRC> safeguard their position. Along with the family, past and present
HRC> examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery and the
HRC> Indian reservation system.

Her point is not well expressed. I think for "family", she means "children",
and for "marriage" she means to refer to the legal status of wives in much of
western (or American?) history before (and into) this century. It is not clear
whether she regards "marriage" as one of the "past" or "present examples of
such arrangements." This statement is just barely accurate enough to avoid
being called silly. But it is a youthful piece, written in 1974: I'd
rather not have everything I wrote then dragged up and reexamined. This
statement is based on fairly conventional feminist thought at the time.

Oh, btw, the article this comes from is called "Children Under the Law",
reprinted in the Harvard Educational Review in 1982. The "American Spectator"
of course is a partisan source, but I imagine that the quotation is accurate
and I'm not sure how a fuller context could "improve" it. I would welcome an
investigation of her writings by some responsible writer or publisher, not a
simple denial, but a real reassessment involving detailed and extensive
quotation, like this article in AS. 

What is much more troubling about her writings is her interest in radically
redefining the legal status of "minority", with a consequent redefinition of
the legal standing of children vis a vis their parents. But this would deserve a
separate thread.... 

William Porter  * * * Classical Languages: University of Houston
Internet: wmporter@jetson.uh.edu
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush Limbaugh Article in the Washington Post
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:24:57 GMT
Organization: The Great Beyond

In article <4735@news.duke.edu> eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
>Today the Washington _Post_ <gasp!> has an article concerning Rush!
>Check out the Aug2092 paper, "Style" section. << Crack your own opinions
>about Rush's "Style" on your own time. >>
>

Another section of the article dealt with interviews with Limbaugh
fans. There was one quote that I found almost scary. I don't have
the article in front of me, but it was a Manhattan secretary, I think,
who said something like this:

"Rush really cares for us. He cares for each and every one of us."

Excuse me while I throw up.

Now that I've done that, that is possibly the most ridiculous thing
I've ever heard in my life. Anyone who thinks Rush gives a flying
fig about any listener beyond that they vote a straight far right-wing
ticket while drinking a Snapple is suffering from severe delusions.
This woman apparently holds Rush at a level usually reserved for either

a) Jesus Christ
- or -
b) Elvis Presley (by obsessed fans).

Anyone who doesn't think at least some Ditto-heads are obsessed 
really needs to think about people like this.
-- 
The world is not analog. The world is digital,
with an incredible number of bits.
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist)                        <fnord>
E-Mail acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4336 alt.rush-limbaugh:3533
From: rnlee@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Profess'nal Agitator)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: A fine opporitunity for flaming liberal flameage
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:50:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: MAWL - Mudd Alums Without Lives

In article <1992Aug12.005823.14573@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>According to the Clinton Economic Plan, he also a supports giving "every
>parent the right to choose the public school his or her child attends,
>as we have done in Arkansas".

And he just as quickly (or is that slickly?) reneged when he was
addressing the NEA recently.

Agitator
  #->

"A political deadend."                  Bruce Herschensohn for U.S. Senate!!!
    --Gore on the Vice Presidency when    Not the ten-year       //  The REAL
      asked about a Dukakis-Gore ticket   Congress insider      //   outsider
--------------- R E M E M B E R   B E I J I N G ------------\\ //------------
IBM PC - Who wants a politically correct computer?           \X/  Only AMIGA!
========================================== Bring Back the Caltech Cannon!! ==
Roderick Lee, HMC '91      "The Professional Agitator"      agitator@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Re: Clinton Will Raise YOUR Taxes - NOT!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 13:26:11 GMT

In <1992Aug12.164449.27090@lsil.com> mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako) writes:

>In article 27597@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>>If the only way to eliminate the debt is to raise taxes,  then we need to 
>>do it.   We can't afford to keep pouring tax dollars down the "debt interest
>>rathole".

>There's one other way to fix the deficit....INFLATION


	Why, liberals presume that inflation is the "solution" to 
everything.  After all, what prosperous country would not choose to
follow the gleaming example of Brazil?


Andrew Aiken
From: mitch@lsil.com (Mitch Sako)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton & Taxes: 7% for health
Date: 12 Aug 92 16:29:48 GMT
Reply-To: mitch@lsil.com
Organization: LSI Logic Corporation

In article 460@psygate.psych.indiana.edu, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>aaiken@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Andrew C. Aiken) writes:
>>I do not see why
>>short-term gains should be taxed more heavily than long-term gains.
>    You should go work for a company where you watch your colleagues get
>axed month-by-month so that some vice-president can jack up his quarterly 
>earnings figures (preparatory to his jump to another job 3 months later). 
>Then try to design a product with the poorly-trained remnants who're the 
>only people left after the axes fall.
>    Our country has gotten where it is today vis the Japanese partly 
>because some MBA's "short term gains" ultimately translated into everyone
>else's long term loss.

One of the most sinister aspects of favoring shortterm capital gains
is that it encourages securities "churning" by unscrupulous brokers
and anyone else who makes their money off commissions.

---

====================================================================
Mitch Sako	LSI Logic Corp.		Phone	408-433-4187
internet:	msako@lsil.com		FAX	408-433-8796
uucp:		lsil!msako
RIME:		->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer:	Opinions expressed are mine and only mine and do
		not reflect the opinions of my organization, my
		management, or my mother
From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Clinton Cheated? was Re: A fine opportunity for DITTOHEAD flameage
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16f (beta) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 13 Aug 92 01:43:06 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <LARRY.92Aug12152827@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
> In article <1992Aug11.121344.4827@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> sschudt@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Susan E Schudt) writes:
>
>    If it's not true, why did he not deny it???   Why did he not admit it???
>    Didn't want to lie OR be honest, I guess.  Veeeeeery Slick indeed!
>    --
> 	      Susan E. Schudt                    0 0
> 	Dept. of Chemical Engineering
> 	 Goooooooooooooooooo  IRISH!           \_____/
> 		Win Twins!
>
>
> Who cares? Not me. I don't care if Bush messed with Jennifer Fitzgerald
> either. I don't think it has a hell of a lot to do with the job of the
> presidency.
>

Mr. Evil, you do not understand what marriage is all about.  It is about
commitment and trust.  And of family values.  If a man violates these values
with the ONE person closest to him, he is likely to have those same kinds
of lack of values as president.  ALL politicians say "Trust Me"...  Trust.
Trust.

> History is full of great leaders whose feet were made of clay.
>
> L.
> "Yeh, Buddy..            | larry@psl.nmsu.edu (Larry Cunningham)|  _~~_
>  I've got your COMPUTER! | % Physical Science Laboratory        | (O)(-)
>  Right HERE!!"           | New Mexico State University          |  /..\
>  (computer THIS!)        | Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA 88003    |   <>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are CORRECT, mine, and not PSLs or NMSUs..
> When I break down just a little, I lose my head. No one can understand a
> word that I say..

--
Amiga programmer of: GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle
Sega Genesis programmer of: Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024
From: cb926@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Edmund Joseph Ryan)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Conservatives on Personal Freedoms (Re: Drug Legalization)
Date: 13 Aug 92 17:17:26 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)


Conservative and Libertarian are philosophical terms thrown around
a lot. Liberalism used to be a good thing for instance until that
word was attached to socialism. I've never seen any polls done on
any of the issues that include decriminalizing prostitution, drugs,
etc. so I will describe the following based on what appears to
be the accepted mainstream thought--what I've read.

William F. Buckley, Jr. is the only conservative that advocates
drug legalization but also is anti-choice. I think you may
classify him as a conservative with a strain of libertarianism.
Most conservatives are pro-choice though. Many other conservatives
who were in the Reagan Admin. and are in the Bush Admin. and
who are commentators on TV seem to be against drug legalization
and prostitution decriminalization and related issues. Then
again they're in the minority on the abortion issue, they
may be in the minority on these other issues. 

I have not heard any liberals or Democrats advocate these
personal freedom positions. Clinton wants more police to
fight the drug problem, and I've never heard a Democrat
member of Congress say that he/she is in favor of drug
legalization when a C-SPAN caller asked him/her.

Virtually,

Ed