HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:18:32 GMT

grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>lsa@ll.mit.edu (lisa s anderson) writes:
>>grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>|>>33. There will always be poor people.                              

>>|>Only as long as there is capitalism.

>>This is so ludicrous it's laughable.  Do you mean to suggest that if we 
>>eliminated capitalism, we would eliminate poor people? ...
[snip]
>>...  Sarcasm aside, I find it hard to believe that anyone could be 
>>naive enough to really believe the statement that you made.

>Believe it, babe.  I never claimed the communistic system of government works.
>All I said was that capitalism creates poverty.

    Ok, if capitalism creates poverty then what creates wealth? Do you 
think that people are better served by communism? There's a joke that I 
heard on NPR a few years back; I think it was in one of Daniel Shore's 
commentaries.

    Q: What is the difference between capitalism and communism?

    A: In capitalism, man exploits man. (very bad)
       In communism, it's the other way around.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gonzalez@athena.mit.edu (John R Gonzalez)
Subject: Re:  Why Rush is a Jack Ass
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:04:01 GMT

	When president Bush was trying to get support for some of the items he
wanted to get through congress didn't one Liberal Democrat congressman say
something to the affect that they were going to do anything to screw George
Bush.  I have been silently reading this group for the year or so that it has
existed, and I don't recall any of you liberal hypocrites supporting George
Bush.  Now, I know that you all are going to say, "oh yeah?! I stood behind the
president when he...".  You may be able to find one instance where you were
supportive, but overall you were vindictive and did not support Bush in any way,
shape, or form.

	Now that your little Billy Clinton won the whitehouse, you expect
conservatives and others who didn't vote for him to support him?  How
hypocritcal can you get?  

					John R. Gonzalez  
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: howiegbk@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jr Howard Mea Turner)
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:24:15 GMT

Al Gore and Dan Quayle both served on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
I hardly think Sen. Gore is more qualified than VP Quayle in terms
of foreign policy.  Quayle handled himself well when the F-16's were called
in to buzz the Philipinnes palace.  Gore might have done the same,
but as of this instant, QUAYLE HAS MORE EXPERIENCE.  What did Al do
during the Persian Gulf . . . does the word waffle mean anything to
anyone?

H.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: Re: I should know better than to talk to a limbot
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:52:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.205716.24840@meaddata.com>, johnt@meaddata.com (John Townsend) writes...

it's against my principles to flame on line, but you're acting like a 
weenie, John.

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: paT bUcHAnaN
Subject: Re:  not all white males are rich and wealthy
Organization: Allegheny College
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 18:54:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.202947.7282@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>  
howiegbk@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jr Howard Mea Turner) writes:
> In article <17NOV199213391854@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>  
mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell) writes:
> >For example, Tuesday I caught just a snippet of his act wherein he  
repeated 
> >his oft-spoken belief that people should not cluster in groups to  
demand 
> >that rights (his words, mine would be 'equality of rights') be accorded 
> >those groups.  thEwIndBag's contention is that people should remain as 
> >individuals and succeed or fail through individual efforts.
> >
> >Ahem.
> >
> >This is exactly what one would expect from a white male, someone who  
has to 
> >have described to him what it's like to be discriminated against *as a 
> >group,* else he'd never have a clue.  The reason for folks to band  
together 
> >by gender, or by color, or by sexual orientation to ask for equality of 
> >rights is precisely because they are denied that equality simply on the 
> >basis of those things that bring them together as a group.
> >
> >One would only expect a white male like thEwIndBag to encourge people  
not 
> >to band together to cure what they see as injustice against them.   
Simply 
> >because he knows that, as individuals, they are as powerless as they  
ever 
> >were and that only by working together can they ever hope to right some  
of 
> >society's injustices toward them.
> >+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
> >| Elliott Mitchell
> >|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
> >|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
> >|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
> 
> 
> By inferring that all white males wish to be oppressive and hold down
> other ethnic, religious, non-heterosexual person, you detract from
> your argument.  You have committed the same mistake.
> 
> I am a white male.  And I am not upper-class, or even upper-middle-class
> in terms of my wealth.  And what I think sucks is this:
> 
> 	Scholarship money that should be earmarked for worthy students is
> instead earmarked for minority students.  Not to say that these students
> are not worthy, but if they get preferential treatment in scholarship  
funds,
> isn't that the same as me being discriminated against?
> 
> 	Make it fair, make it even, make it right.
> 	But don't make it a quota.
> 
> 	Earn it, don't accept it.
> 
> 
> Howard
> 
> P.S.  Thanks to all of the people who responded to my previous postings
> politely and intelligently.  I appreciated the discourse.
> 

I totally agree with you.  I could not get any money for college for one  
simple reason: I am white and I'm a male.  Quotas and reverse  
discrimination are just a sorry excuse to give preferential treatment to  
others and to screw over the white male.

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag bashes Rev. Jackson, again
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:44:54 GMT

>>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:54:30 GMT, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) said:

John> More liberal condescension here - this guy actually thinks he is so 
John> much smarter than the rest of the world that *he* can figure out 
John> there is really not a separate EIB Building right next to Madison 
John> Square Garden, which is one of the most expensive pieces of real estate
John> in the US. Everyone else, of course, is a total idiot and can't seem
John> in the humor in Rush's remarks. 

So, John, if you figured that out, why haven't you figured out that Rush
Limbaugh is really just a bit, the radio equivalent of Max Headroom?

That's one of the problems with all these nested satirisms, I guess. A and
B are mutually regarding each other's tongue-in-cheek comments as serious,
while insisting that the other person is too stupid to see their satire.

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..
Because the plot demands: an EVIL man!





Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:56:34 GMT

|> >In article <1992Nov16.181753.29925@athena.cs.uga.edu>, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
|> 
|> [stuff about DQ's "Murphy Brown Speech" deleted]
|> 
|> >|> 
|> >|> 	Yeah. Right. It wasn't an attack on single parents. Just two
|> >|> days later Quayle's handlers said the VP was misunderstood. The
|> >|> speech, they way, was a warning shot to deadbeat dads.
|> >|> 	Funny. I read the text of that speech somewhere, and I don't
|> >|> recall any mention of deadbeat Dads. Maybe it was subliminal, and
|> >|> something that only republicans could pickup on.
|> >


This may not really be on the current subject of the thread but I
thought I would throw it in anyway.

Yesterday my wife heard Bill Clinton DEFENDING Dan "Mr. Potatoe Head"
Quayle's stance and statements concerning Murphy Brown.

Argggggg.

Looks like you Dems. bought a wolf in sheeps clothing.

-- 
Doug                   

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can 
do for your country.  - JFK
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:44:12 EST
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sniveling Whiny Conservatives
Distribution: na

In article <1992Nov13.230713.5176@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu
(Harry Tuttle) says:

>Rush and the Rushettes that listen to him are beginning to sound like
>the bad guys in a Scooby Doo cartoon after they are caught:

>"Ooohhh.  Why you little...Bush would have gotten away with it, if it
>wasn't for you snooping liberals!"

Though you're wrong in your observations, this is kind of funny.  (Further
confusion for you...  still baffled by my Quayle-joke?)

>I mean, my God, he's married to a strong woman, too!  What on earth is
>this country coming to?

I know!  Just like Dan Quayle and George Bush!  How awful!

>Rush is undeniably a mega-celebrity in the state-of-the-art,
>electronically sophisticated medium that is AM radio.  His listeners
>number into the hundreds and people all over the country listen to
>him every day because they really have nothing better to do.  Some
>even summarize every single one of his shows.  Wow, he must be big.

You're still expecting him to be off the air by the end of the year, aren't
you?

Say, have you checked the Nielsens lately?

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: knauer@pegasus.cs.uiuc.edu (Rob Knauerhase)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch Day 15
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 19:58:42 GMT

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

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

Rob
--
Rob Knauerhase           University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
knauer@cs.uiuc.edu       Dept. of Computer Science, Gigabit Study Group
   "Eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow, ye will be taxed."  America, I
    hope 'change' was worth it...
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9026 alt.rush-limbaugh:10253
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush Butchers Facts for his own Agenda
Date: 23 Nov 92 06:08:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

I agree with the person who said that Rush is starting to sound petty and
vindictive.  Before Clinton got elected Rush was moderately clever, but
now he seems to be on a Jihad or a Vendetta,  neither of which sit too
well with the american consumer.   But that's not why I am typing -

Wednesday or Thursday (?) Rush responded to the NYT poll on the political bias
of newscasters and reporters.   The numbers ar 44% liberal, 16% conservative,
a few % socialist, communist, etc..., and 36% moderate.

This of course is in direct contradiction to Rush's (and Bush's) common
cannard that the press is so terribly unfair and liberally biased.
So what does rush do?  He claims (numbers +/- a percent or two
because I don't have a perfect memory for this kinda stuff);

"Well, all 36% moderates are just liberals in disguise.  Of the 16% who
claim to be conservative, at least 5% are liberals [not moderates] in
disguise.  So the real number is 11% conservative, and the rest are
liberals or worse"


Well, this is how rush thinks - if we don't like the facts, call them
liars and readjust the numbers until they suit your agenda.



With that in mind, what about the 13 million listeners Rush claims?
Well, first of all he admitted this last week that only 3 to 3.5 million 
listen on any regular basis.   Now lets apply Llimbaugh math;

Of those 3 million probably 1/2 of them are ottid heads like myself.
Of the remaining 1.5 million, .5 million probably only listen because they
agree with a few things Rush says, and like the entertainment value.
So that leaves less that 1 million people who actually agree with
much of what he says...

Since there are an estimated 150,000 members of the KKK, that means
rush is only about 6 times mroe popular than the KKK.

If anybody disagrees with my methods, then you have to disagree with
Rush's methods too.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Jobism
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:03:40 GMT


In a previous article, scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn) says:

>  In response to:
>>>   13. Vote for Jack Kemp in 96.
>
>  Kelley Miller writes:
>>First an actor, then a Jock...Gee, don't the Republicans have ANY
>>educated people in their party?
>
>     Imagine if I were one of those humor-impaired Democrats that I sometimes
>have the misfortune of running into. Imagine that this were a comment about a
>Democrat instead of about a Republican. Can you hear the screams of class
>prejudice? Can you hear the earnest discussion about how the GOP will always be
>the party of the rich who were fortunate enough to get a good education?

Humor impared?  It was a JOKE, asshole.  I voted for Reagan twice, and if 
Clinton screws up, I would gladly throw my support behing Jack Kemp. Having
been born and raised in Buffalo NY, he is something of a local hero, and the
work he did in the congress and in HUD is commendable, and in some cases,
visionary.

Compare that statement to the balance of my responses.  It was in the vein of
ironic satire.

>     (And if you'll permit me to indulge in some place-ism, I'd like to say
>that there's something ironic about a person from the Youngstown, Ohio area
>complaining about a lack of educated people in some other place or group.)

Of course.  A city with university with a world-class engineering school, a 
world class computer school, a world class liberal (I know, you HATE that word)
arts college would be a place you would expect the bigest morons in the 
country to come from.

>     Also, the Democrats nominated two lawyers this year. Should they be
>proud about this? Does a Democrat have any grounds then for criticizing the
>occupation of another party's candidate? And what if Bill Bradley won the '00
>nomination? Would being an athlete suddenly be all right?
>
>>*****************  James Trafficant for US Senate, 1998  *****************
>
>     I hope he gets the Democratic nomination. Even Buzz "I Didn't Know She Was
>16" Lukens could wipe the floor with this guy.
>

Yeah.  Right.

-- 
*...your Friendly Neighborhood Atheist  /\/\   HATE IS NOT A  *         
*                    Kelley L. Miller  / /  \  FAMILY VALUE   *            
*                  ae642@yfn.ysu.edu  / /____\                *  
*     GIGO: Gospel In--Garbage Out   /______\                 *
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: sbender@navajo.dsd.es.com (Steve Bender)
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 20:40:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.181753.29925@athena.cs.uga.edu>, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov16.163547.18320@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
|> >In article <1992Nov13.201411.8203@cs.tulane.edu>, lang@cs.tulane.edu (Raymond Lang) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> In article <1e0vn9INNq5t@transfer.stratus.com>, dennist@sw.stratus.com (Dennis Tetreault) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> Let's stop this rumor now, before it gets out of hand.
|> >
|> >Why should we?  After all, the truth had very little to do with most of what
|> >Quayle was reported to have said and done.  This would be no greater distorion
|> >of the truth than, say, the alleged attack on single parents in the
|> >"Murphey Brown" speech.
|> 
|> 	Yeah. Right. It wasn't an attack on single parents. Just two
|> days later Quayle's handlers said the VP was misunderstood. The
|> speech, they way, was a warning shot to deadbeat dads.
|> 	Funny. I read the text of that speech somewhere, and I don't
|> recall any mention of deadbeat Dads. Maybe it was subliminal, and
|> something that only republicans could pickup on.

Review the text and you will also find that the speech did not
attack single parents.

-- 
Steve Bender
Evans & Sutherland
(801) 582-5847
Salt Lake City, UT 84108

sbender@dsd.es.com

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mycroft@dorsai.com (Keith Kushner)
Subject: Re: Just a thought on Condoms.
Organization: The Dorsai Embassy +1.718.729.5018
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:44:21 GMT

enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: 
: Remember there are two concrete ways to avoid HIV+AIDS(although these are not 
: fool proof due to the slim chance of getting HIV from a medical related
: activity.)
: 
: 	1.  ABSTAIN from sex until marriage.  Your life is worth it.  Plus it 
: 	    may even be more enjoyable.
: 
: 	2.  Don't take illeagal drugs, at all especially those which require
: 	    you to use a hypodermic needle.
: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: 
        3.  Avoid all contact sports, since injuries might permit fluid-to-
            mixing.

        4.  Avoid crowds, as there have been incidents where teenagers have
            stuck unsuspecting passers-by with needles and pins that were,
            allegedly, AIDS-infected.

        5.  Avoid beaches, as medical waste often washes up on them.

        6.  Avoid being mugged, beaten, or raped...  one never knows the
            HIV status of the criminal, and is prevented by privacy laws
            from finding out, even in the instances where the criminal is
            caught and convicted.

        7.  Avoid dentists and other doctors whose HIV status *might* be
            positive. Of course, there are those damnable privacy laws...

        8.  Avoid becoming a dentist, doctor, or nurse.

And, of course, you've got to insist that your spouse-to-be have a blood test
more than six months before the wedding night and be isolated from that time
until the wedding night. Or, possibly, abstain from sex for six months after
the wedding, having the HIV test just before the ceremony. And then *both*
partners must not only follow all the guidelines above (and avoid medical
procedures that might transmit the virus) but be completeley monogamous.

Your list is woefully and laughably incomplete. Good luck.



: Robert R. Eno A Conservative Voice in Massachusetts
: 
A voice unattached to a mind, as it were... typical of self-proclaimed
"Conservatives".
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8971 alt.rush-limbaugh:10206
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: "TAXES SHOULD BE BASIS FOR VOTING CLOUT"
Date: 22 Nov 1992 05:49:57 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu



Reprinted from the Akron (OH) Beacon Journal, Nov. 14:

        "TAXES SHOULD BE BASIS FOR VOTING CLOUT"

   Each voter does not contribute the same amount in taxes,
so why should every vote be equal?  The votes should be weighted
according to how much income tax the voter pays.
   This "weighted suffrage" would result in fairer representation
and less cheating on income tax returns.  The middle class pays
most of the taxes, and the middle class would tend to support those
who would reduce the size and scope of government, freeing up the
private sector.
   The increased role of the marketplace would narrow the gap
between the rich and poor, and promote peace worldwide.
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8621 alt.rush-limbaugh:9734 alt.politics.bush:13893
From: marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Date: 15 Nov 1992 20:10:33 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Department MSCS
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: studsys.mscs.mu.edu

In article <1992Nov13.213554.5380@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>In article <1dr3l6INNmot@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.171300.11448@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
<<>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>>>                           | Support the coup!
>>
>>John,
>>
>>Your .sig points out what kind of a narrow-minded person you are.
>>And your summaries point out not only your single-minded devotion to
>>whatever Rush limbaugh says, but the fact you have no life.  Why?
>>What kind of life must you have that the best thing you can think 
>>to do with your time is type up 'summaries' of the Rush Limbaugh
>>show.
>
>Better watch out John, the liberals are for freedom except where that
>freedom slays their sacred cows.  Instead of philosophically arguing

Explain where I am advocating taking away his freedom OR having
the government use force to stop him?

>against limited government and individual rights they are only able 
>to call you little names and insult your "alternative lifestyle" of
>following Rush Limbaugh.

Falls under the same vein of 'straights' questioning 'gay' lifestyles
then.  

>"you have no life" is like calling you a fetus and their going to 
>try to abort you!

No, if I was trying to 'abort' or 'censor' Mr. Switzer I'd issue kill
requests from nntp sites.  If John wishes to waste time typing in summeries
let him.  I can think of better things to do.  Like reading trade rags
or even a good si-fi book.

One man's narrow-mindedness is Rush Libaughs' enlighted individual. 


-- 
Marc Rassbach    marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu    If you take my advice, that
MS-DOS - it's not   marc@milestn.mil.wi.us    is your problem, not mine!
my problem!     If it was said on UseNet, it must be true.
   Unix - It's a nice place to live, but you don't want to visit there.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh