HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory
	<grendel.722136033@camelot> <1992Nov22.170236.27026@nmsu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:21:13 GMT

>>>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:02:36 GMT, dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) said:

David> In article <grendel.722136033@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu
David> (Alyosha Bourgea) writes: 
>In <1992Nov18.020350.12683@netcom.com> kc@netcom.com (Dameon D. Welch) writes:
>
>>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:

>>>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.               
>>>
>>>Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.
>
>>But most of them preached facist left-winged ideas.
>
>HELLO!  Remember the coup?  Remember Gorbachev getting kidnapped?  Remember
>the breakup of the Soviet Union?  It happened because a RIGHT-wing faction
>of the government, that is, the old guard of Brezhnev/Lenin ideology,
>opposed Gorbachev's progressivism and willingness to allow state's rights.
>Calling Soviet government fascist left-wingers is way too convenient.

David> Actually, as I recall, they weren't exactly thrilled about Gorby's
David> free market experiments.  So are you saying that a conservative is
David> someone who disliked the free market.  What an odd and convenient
David> definition; e.g. right wing= bad guys.

Gosh, fellers. Have you forgotten Rush's problems with historians (and
dictionaries) and their definitions of the adjective "conservative"?
Strangely enough, Rush corrected the terms to equate conservative = good
and liberal = bad. It all came clear with Rush's Gorbasms. Where were you
guys?

Part of the Rush Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservatism's
indoctrination exam, and you guys would flunk! Some Dittobrains you've
turned out to be. No jackboots will be issued to you until you get this
straight. 

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..
I admit the deed! Tear up the planks! It is the beating of his hideous heart!
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8793 alt.rush-limbaugh:9967
From: watnik@fisher.ucdavis.edu (Mitchell Watnik)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Gay Marriages?
Keywords: marriage, 14th Amendment, gays, lesbians
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:03:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Organization: University of California, Davis


Dear Rush Limbaugh fans, foes and others:
My friend and I have spent a great deal of time recently arguing over the
legal recognition of gay marriages.  Unfortunately, our arguments have
turned into either trivializations of the subject or just a simple
difference of opinions.  I would like to hear arguments for and against
LEGAL RECOGNITION of gay marriages (not the idea of the marriage itself or
moral issues--  I am pretty close to Libertarian in my politics and I've
granted my friend the point that government should not enforce morality or
enter into people's bedrooms).  

For example:  My friend argues that the 14th Amendment provides that all
citizens should have the same rights and privileges.  He says that gays'
14th Amendment rights are violated since they do not enjoy the privilege
of marrying the person of their choice.  I've argued against this point 3
ways.  First, the legal definition of marriage currently says that
marriage includes one member of each sex and everybody DOES enjoy this
privilege (he claims that this does not let them include the person of
their choice).  Second, if choice is the issue, I argue that this
"privilege" (which I say he's drawing out of thin air:  "Where does it say
that you have the right to get married to whomever you want?") since I am
not entitled to marry, say, "that pretty woman over there" (he talks about
mutual consent, to which I respond (admittedly feebly) that then we could
address inter-species marriage).  Finally, we argue over the purpose of
the 14th Amendment.  He is one of those people who claims in arguments
against the Second Amendment that the "Founding Fathers could never have
foreseen automatic weapons...";  so I turn the argument to "the writers of
the 14th Amendment could never have foreseen it being used as a tool to
expand the rights of certain political factions above others." 

Once again, I wish to emphasize that we are NOT discussing morality or
judgment.  The words "fag" and "homophobe" do not make for good arguments.
I hope to get good responses, both pro and con, so that the two of us will
have more ammunition with which to waste our free time.

Thank you very much for listening and, in advance, for your responses.
--Mitchell Watnik
(mrwatnik@ucdavis.edu)
 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: williams@herky.cs.uiowa.edu (Kent Williams)
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 13:21:23 GMT
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

From article <1e0vn9INNq5t@transfer.stratus.com>, by dennist@sw.stratus.com (Dennis Tetreault):
> Something happened though. After the election results came in, and 
> the Clinton's stood up on stage, and were joined by the Gore family, Al
> pulled a Quayle. While leaning off the stage to shake hands with the
> supporters, Al fell head first into the crowd. There was a photo of a
> Secret Service agent trying to keep him from falling off by holding his
> belt. I can't say for certain that he *did* fall in, but I think he did.

He was pandering to the MTV vote by stage diving.  He must have just
seen the latest REM video.

--
Kent Williams -- williams@cs.uiowa.edu Work(335-4496) Home(338-6053)
There used to be an inflammatory quote here.


Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: griswoldj@bntley.bntley.ingr.com (John Griswold)
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Organization: Bentley Systems (Development)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:44:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.160032.3800@tc.cornell.edu>,
shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov17.222742.13500@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> rchabot@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert J Chabot) writes:
> >Please illustrate other examples of conservatives pointing fingers at fictional
> >characters.  The statement aappears to be a "generalization."
> 
> Quayle's constant harping about Hollywood's "cultural elite"
> is probably the best example.
> 
> >1) Just *how* did the 50s "attempt to force" women into the kitchen???  The 50s
> >were a period of relative prosperity, esp. in the U.S.  If women were
> >returning to "the kitchen", it was in response to the *economic* context--not
> >to the "50s attempt to force women into the kitchen."
> 
> It was both.  During the Second World War women went to work
> jobs that had traditionally been reserved for men.  When the
> war ended and the soldiers returned, women were forced out
> of their jobs so that the men could have them back.

Yea, the men that had helped defend the world from tyranny.
You make this sound as if the war was some plot to give women a
bunch of grief.

Lets not make this statement without full credit.  We are talking
about a country and a world that had been turned completely on end.
I don't know of very many women that wanted to be in those factories
or very many men that wanted to be overseas.  But we all did what
was required.

The return to a *normal* culture was important for *everyone* to
recover from the shock of war.  Lots of things changed and adjusted
as a result of the war.  Not all good and not all bad.  Just changed.

--------------------------------------------+---------------------------
John Griswold                               | Bentley Systems Inc.
UUCP: ...uunet!ingr!bntley!griswoldj        | 690 Pennsylvania Drive 
INTERNET: griswoldj@bntley.bntley.ingr.com  | Eagleview Corporate Center
AT&T:     (215) 458-5000                    | Exton, PA 19341
--------------------------------------------+---------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch - Day 17
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:46:34 GMT

jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>>Huh? So what? What has this got to do with the price of eggs in China?

>Zack, only you could possibly think that anything in the Rush Limbaugh 
>newsgroup would ever have anything to do with the price of eggs in China. 
>If you're not sharp enough to stay on top of things, please sit back 
>quietly and remember that adage 'it's better to remain silent and be
>thought a wise man, thank to speak and remove all doubt whether you're
>a fool."

    Well, in Zack's defense I would also recall the moral of one of James 
Thurber's _Fables_For_Our_Time_, "It is better to ask some of the questions 
than to know all of the answers."

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: the numbers of his legions
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:22:00 GMT

Here's my question... is it not true that more people voted for Ross Perot 
than listen to thEwIndBag?

+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| Elliott Mitchell
|  Peabody College at Vanderbilt University
|  Nashville, Tenn. Home of the Grand Ole Opry
|  IN: mitcheec@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu | BN: MITCHEEC@VUCTRVAX
From: rfa@Turing.ORG (Robert F. Alexander)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch - Day 17
Date: 21 Nov 92 05:07:01 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <41352@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:
      (all kinds of stuff deleted)
>
>Btw. I am nont afraid of Rush but I am afraid of the people  who
>blindly seem to follow his ideas and lines of arguments. People who
>blindly follow their leaders have more than once caused unnecessary
>suffering to others who did not agree with them. 
>-- 
>Pim van Meurs  UC San Diego Scripps Institution of Oceanography
>Mail Code A-030  	 UUCP : ...!ucsd!ssurf.ucsd.edu!VANMEURS
>UCSD La Jolla  CA 92093  ARPA : VANMEURS@ssurf.ucsd.edu
>(619)-458 9729 Home	 Bitnet : VANMEURS%ssurf.ucsd.edu@sdsc

You seem to be on a really big rant about the `BLIND'
followers of Mr. Limbaugh. I would like to know just who you
think these people are. Are they anything like the `BLIND'
followers of Bill Clinton?

I listen to Rush about twice a week. I agree with him more
often than not. I once was a Democrat and now I am not. I
think for myself and do what I think is right for me and my
family. I'm white. I work 60 hous a week on average. I'm
better off now than I was 12 years ago. I'm 40 yaers old,
married with four kids,two dogs,a cat and 5 Gerbils. We own
two cars and are not mortgaged up to our asses. 

I'll say it again...If you don't like Rush...why do you
listen? And, why the hell do you come in here to flame bait
those of us who like to listen to his show. You should be
off reading some fish conference somewhere.
-- 
rfa@turing.ORG    ( KD4QBD )         /      BROADCAST ENGINEER
(804) 296-7697  Hm                   /      WCHV         WWWVV
(804) 977-5566  Wk                   /      Oldies   AlbumRock
From: kc@netcom.com (Dameon D. Welch)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Date: 18 Nov 92 02:03:50 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Wayne's World, Inc -- NOT!

In article <grendel.722041805@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <69483@cup.portal.com> sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>
>>21. Abortion is wrong.                                             
>
>Single mothers living in poverty with six starving children is wrong.

And how did the mother get this way, might I ask? She most likely had
sex with someone without using birth control. It's *HER* fault. When
will you Liberals pull your head out of your ass and realize that
people can and should be responsible for their own actions?

>>25. Love is the only emotion that cannot be controlled.            
>
>Limbaugh seems to control it well enough.

How do you figure this?

>>27. Soviet leaders are actually left wing dictators.               
>
>Believe it or not, not all Soviet leaders are any one thing.

But most of them preached facist left-winged ideas.

>>33. There will always be poor people.                              
>
>Only as long as there is capitalism.

I agree with what Rush says because there are always lazy people who
expect people to do things for them, which is where you leftists
derive your power and mandate from. Capitalism allows people to make
their own mark on their own. 

>>34. This is not the fault of Malcolm Forbes, Ronald Reagan, Rush   
>>    Limbaugh, or any other rich person.                            
>
>No, it is the fault of the system which Forbes, Reagan, et al take
>advantage of.

See above.
-- 
Dameon D. Welch, NH6TW               kc@netcom.com OR dwelch@scuacc.scu.edu
       Sophomore CS Major at Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA
--
          "Don't be afraid, it's only business." -- Roger Waters
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl)
Subject: Re: Rush is RIGHT again
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:11:43 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1epe7iINNsuc@agate.berkeley.edu>, yeomans@luxor.ced.berkeley.edu (Gary Todd Yeomans) writes:
|> Rush was right about the UH-ReverUND JACKson-UH hiding in the wings for Clinton and the 
|> big pay-off for hiding during the campaign.  Did you people see that they had dinner and
|> Clinton went to one of Jackson's services where he called Clinton a "great healer"?
|> 
|> Here it comes, Jackson's going to be named to the Supreme Court or Minister of the Interior
|> or something.


I'm sorry.  I must of missed the first time Rush was right

Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:17:53 GMT

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.



-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9029 alt.rush-limbaugh:10259 alt.politics.bush:14007
From: krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Date: 21 Nov 92 06:07:52 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson AZ

In article <grendel.722305591@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>In <1992Nov17.162705.24794@galileo.physics.arizona.edu> krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov15.171641.28584@seq.uncwil.edu> session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov10.171300.11448@netcom.com> jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
>>>>John Switzer               | Impeach Clinton!
>>>>                           | Support the coup!
>>>
>>>I'd like to make a couple of comments in this thread concerning John's
>>>current .sig.
>>>
>>>I really don't mind it very much, after all it is a free country and you
>>>can say just about anything you want to. (It is illegal to threaten
>>>the life of the president with mere words.) But I do think that is it
>>>pretty stupid. Mainly since Clinton isn't president yet!! He is the
>>>President-ELECT. You can't impeach someone who isn't the president yet!
>>>GIVE THE GUY A CHANCE TO SCREW UP FIRST!!!
>
>>But he has already promised to screw up, by saying that he will remove 
>>the ban on gays in the military, etc.  I have not heard one of his 100 
>>day promises which is not a screw up, at least IMO, therefore, as far 
>>as I am concerned, HE ALREADY HAS SCREWED UP!!!
>
>>Ted (author and originator of the term `Zackane') Krueger
>
><shocked gasp>!  You, good little conservative, actually _believe_ Slick
>Willie will follow through on any of his promises?  How dare you?!  Everyone
>knows he's just a waffler who tries to please everyone.

You definitely got me with that one, except that I am anything but little!

Ted

-- 
"We will bury you! We will bury you! We will bury you!"
      - some ex-Soviet leader            
                   krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd)
Subject: Re: Rush lets something slip ...
Organization: Stanford University
Distribution: world, na
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 04:48:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.014624.11355@lclark.edu> hulsej@lclark.edu (Jose Hulse) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.195540.10044@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
>
>>Rush then said that "I have had girls say no for a lot of other reasons, but
>>this was the only time because of papaya juice."
>>
>>Hmmm, Mr "Unmarried Sex is a Sin" just stated that he was soliciting sex
>>from 'girls',  and he also admitted that he wasn't having a lot of luck.
>>
>>Maybe that is why he is so down on Kennedy's philandering?  Because Kennedy
>>is successful while Rush is striking out?
>
>Well, _look_ at Rush for God's Sake (tm)!  Is it any wonder he's struck out??
>And I understand he's lost quite a bit of weight in the last few months!
>How old is he, anyway?  Late thirties/early forties?
>-Jose'
>
>-- 
>_______________________________________________
>Jose' Hulse  hulsej@lclark.edu |  Four years ago, Bush said that if I voted 
>for Dukakis I could expect crime,taxes and the deficit to go up.
>I guess he was right...I voted for Dukakis and look what happened!


This last gratuity looks ominously like the old saw about Barry Goldwater
and 1964. (You know, he ran that "In your heart you know he's right.")
Well, Johnson was saying about how the war in east asia would break out
and...
Well, th eoriginal  was something like...
"They told me in 1964 that if I voted for Goldwater, there would be
a terrible war in southeast asia, inflation would drive the economy
down, and the country would go to hell. Well, I voted for Goldwater
in 1964, and damned if they weren't correct."
--
David Leung-tak
"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
"A day without sun is night."
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Subject: Re: Rush lets something slip ...
Organization: Stay Awake Software
Distribution: world, na
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 20:40:04 GMT

<JASON.92Nov18092752@ab20.larc.nasa.gov> Jason C. Austin <j.c.austin@larc.nasa.gov> said:
>In article <1992Nov17.195540.10044@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
...
>-> Rush then said that "I have had girls say no for a lot of other reasons, but
>-> this was the only time because of papaya juice."
>-> 
>-> Hmmm, Mr "Unmarried Sex is a Sin" just stated that he was soliciting sex
>-> from 'girls',  and he also admitted that he wasn't having a lot of luck.
>-> 
>-> Maybe that is why he is so down on Kennedy's philandering?  Because Kennedy
>-> is succesful while Rush is striking out?
>
>	Can you post a time and date when he said he believed
>unmarried sex is a sin?  I don't remember it.

He does claim to be a conservative, doesn't he?


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: crosmun@crosmun.rtp.dg.com (William Crosmun)
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 16:28:57 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Data General Corporation, RTP, NC.

In article <1992Nov18.022916.9784@math.ucla.edu> pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh) writes:
>In article <grendel.722041805@camelot> grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:
>>In <69483@cup.portal.com> sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
>>
>
>Somehow I find it difficult to imagine Rush capable of love. Probably
>related to my comment to 24. The only way I can see a woman being
>attracted to Rush (unless she's a brainless DittoHead) is for his
>money. How any woman could contemplate sleeping with such an amorphous
>mass of bigotry is beyond me...

This is the most offensively sexist thing I've read in a long time. To suggest
that no woman could be attracted to Rush because of the way he looks, and
could only be interested in his money, is a giant step backward toward the
dark ages.

>
>David (the AntiRusht)

Ah.  Now I understand.

>
>--
>|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|
>   David Pugh,  UCLA,  CA         |     Hot Dog, Jumping Frog
>   pugh@math.ucla.edu             |     Albuquerque  -  Prefab Sprout
>|-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-|



===============================================================================
William Crosmun
crosmun@dg-rtp.dg.com

===============================================================================
"Above all, as the keynote of all Democratic policy, in passing upon any
 question, let the controlling aim and ambition be to keep the road open for
 private enterprise and personal initiative."

             John W. Davis - Democratic candidate for President - 1924

===============================================================================
"I do not want to live under a philanthropy.  I do not want to be taken care
 of by the government.... We do not want a benevolent government.  We want a
 free and a just government."

             Woodrow Wilson  

===============================================================================