HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jtinkle@sparc1.sparc1.csubak.edu (j. tinkle )
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Hypocrisy
Date: 12 Dec 92 08:07:42 GMT
Organization: California State University, Bakersfield

In article <1560@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu> libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson) writes:
>gp2f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Gary James Patalsky) writes:
>: 
>: I think that the official motto of environmental liberals should be:
>: 
>: " You can kill all the babies you want, but DON'T  TOUCH the spotted owl."
>: 
>: 
>: Sadly, this is how many people think.  They do indeed try to elevate the
>: status of animals above that of humans.   In this case, unfortunately,
>: they have been successful. 
>
>I'm a member of the Secret Council of Environmental Whackos.  I
>shouldn't tell you this, but since you came so close to getting it
>right, here's our actual motto:
>
>"You can kill all the fat windbag radio dribblers you want, but
>DON'T TOUCH the snail darter."
In light of that, shouldn't it be "Secret Council of RUSH-HATING Environmental
Whackos" (S.C.R.E.W.) ?  

>Sorry; I can't give you a prize, but thanks for playing.
Thought I deserved one!
Just couldn't resist!!!  You set it up sooooooo beautifully!

Jennifer
JDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDT
One of those rare individuals who likes chocolate chip 
cookies for the COOKIE, not the chocolate chips.
JDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDTJDT
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gus3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Christian Gustafson)
Subject: Cough! Choke! Air, more air!
Summary: Purges and/or standards needed on the EIB Group
Reply-To: gus3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:47:21 GMT

(Sorry, 1st post clipped 1st paragraph.)
A number of recent posts have complained, quite rightly, about the
subject matter of the posts to this group, for the discussions have
degenerated into a number of petty flame-wars that have NOTHING to
do with Mr. Limbaugh, his broadcasts, or even conservatism in general.
Friends, *please* take your arguments over the natural-ness of queerdom, 
would-be 'family' innovations, the evils of Christianity, and so forth 
to other groups, because we are experiencing severe gridlock on this
one.

At least one decent fellow included a spec. with his comments that sent
follow-up to alt.xxx.xxxxx, and it would be nice if more of you followed
his example.  As for the tendency for frothy-mouthed liberals to post
to this address just to irk us, I suppose that they want to reach Con-
servatives somehow, and this is the only designated group (that I know 
of) where they are sure to find us.

IMHO, I think we should create a new newsgroup, alt.conservative.forum,
that could contain the facts, truths, and seemingly divine insights of those 
of us who are digging-in for 4 years of an occupation force being inside 
the Beltway.  Such a group would be a lesser version of the much lauded 
'Town Hall,' but would still run on the inexhaustible fuel of Conservative
ideas.

For now, though, I find this group too noxious, and, despite my mistrust
of them, I am tempted to call the EPA.  Air, more air, on the EIB group!
cg
-- 
:::::======  gus3@midway.uchicago.edu      :::::====== 
:::::======  Paleoconservative and proud-  :::::======  
===========  fighting to repeal the New    ===========  
===========  Deal, for a better tomorrow.  ===========  
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Subject: Re: Sometimes I wonder about you people
Reply-To: ae642@yfn.ysu.edu (Kelley Miller)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:50:55 GMT


In a previous article, eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) says:

>eyc:
>This is the sort of bovine scatology that makes me wonder about some of
>you people.

[Many examples deleted]

>
>eyc:
>Can we please stop wasting bandwidth on BS topics and slander? This is
>starting to get real tiresome.

Certianly.  Just as soon as all the Limbots admit that truth is objective,
not subjective, and that 90% of the garbage that comes out of Limbaugh's
mouth is exactly that, garbage.



>-- 
>Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
>	Vacation period (off-line): December 18 to January 11.
>	Take care of the network when I'm gone.
>FOUR MORE MONTHS!!! FOUR MORE CLASSES!!! FOUR MORE ACCEPTANCE LETTERS!!! 
>
-- 
*...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
From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: Conservative vs Liberal Discussions...
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:54:12 GMT

vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>I think one thing you are all forgetting is this:  Rush Limbaugh is NOT
>a politician.  He is an entertainer.

    No, actually I do remember that point, but I just don't see what it 
has to do with this discussion.

>We have listened to uneducated liberal imbeciles like Whoopie Goldberg, 
>Arsenio Hall and Jay Leno calling Bush and Quayle names for years. This 
>is protected by liberals under the guise of "free speech", but when we 
>conservatives FINALLY get a voice in the media, that's "deliberate name-
>calling".

    I don't deny that Arsenio and Leno are name-callers, but I believe 
that the thing that "protects" them is not liberalism but the US 
Constitution. Rush Limbaugh is entitled to the same protection, however 
what he and Arsenio and Leno and Goldberg are all doing is still name-
calling. He's welcome to call people all the names he can think up, but 
he is not exempt from having people like me notice and comment on what he 
does.

>Y'all better wake up and smell the coffee.  Rush Limbaugh is extremely 
>conservative (in the non-political sense) with his "name calling" compared
>to those liberal leaders in the feminazi, gay rights and wacko environmentalist
>interest groups.

    For crying out loud, just about *anyone* is going to be "conservative" 
under that criterion. That's almost like some psycho-cannibal trying to 
escape prosecution by saying "Hey, I ate less people than Jeffery Dalhmer, 
what more do you want?"

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: patrick@is.rice.edu (Patrick L Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Flush Limburger
Summary: I already did, thank you. 
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 00:47:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.205113.19375@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>(bovine excrement claiming that Rush is today's Archie Bunker deleted)
>
>Liberals post this fertilizer comparing Conservatives to racists and Nazis
>and then wonder why we want a moderated newsgroup for conservative discussions.
>
>I think it's been mentioned before, but when one goes around calling people
>racists and Nazis for no reason, they trivialize the real meaning of those
>terms.

Very true -- of course, some of the self-styled conservatives seem to think
it's perfectly okay to describe anyone not sharing their opinions as
"wacko", "subversive", or "Communist", but I guess that's okay, eh?

--PLH, glad he's Libertarian and outside the whole sorry label war



-- 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: gus3@ellis.uchicago.edu (Christian Gustafson)
Subject: Cough! Choke! Air, more air!
Summary: Purges and/or standards needed on the EIB Group
Reply-To: gus3@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:31:11 GMT

At least one decent fellow included a spec. with his comments that sent
follow-up to alt.xxx.xxxxx, and it would be nice if more of you followed
his example.  As for the tendency for frothy-mouthed liberals to post
to this address just to irk us, I suppose that they want to reach Con-
servatives somehow, and this is the only designated group (that I know 
of) where they are sure to find us.

IMHO, I think we should create a new newsgroup, alt.conservative.forum,
that could contain the facts, truths, and seemingly divine insights of those 
of us who are digging-in for 4 years of an occupation force being inside 
the Beltway.  Such a group would be a lesser version of the much lauded 
'Town Hall,' but would still run on the inexhaustible fuel of Conservative
ideas.

For now, though, I find this group too noxious, and, despite my mistrust
of them, I am tempted to call the EPA.  Air, more air, on the EIB group!
cg
-- 
:::::======  gus3@midway.uchicago.edu      :::::====== 
:::::======  Paleoconservative and proud-  :::::======  
===========  fighting to repeal the New    ===========  
===========  Deal, for a better tomorrow.  ===========
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Khat (Summary Wed 12/9/92)
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
	<1992Dec14.222307.28639@netcom.com>
Date: 15 Dec 92 16:24:20

John Switzer writes:
>The LA Times had a feature story on this, and it left the impression
>that since no Khat was available for the first 48 hours after the
>Marines landed that there was a real threat of withdrawal-induced
>rioting. The Times, though, also claimed that Khat calmed the nerves
>of the Somali gunmen, which is hard to understand if it is an
>amphetamin

Not really.  Norwegians drink a _lot_ of very strong coffee, and of
course caffeine is a stimulant.  I've often seen people acting very
nervous and jumpy (and bad-tempered!) because they haven't gotten
their usual dose of coffee today.  You would think it would work the
other way, that they'd be drowsy, but it doesn't always.

Drugs don't seem to work in simple, straight-ahead ways...

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: The "C" word
From: whan@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Date: 19 Dec 92 11:52:39 EST
Organization: Wesleyan University

A very wise person posted an incredibly interesting and intellectually
devastating definition of the word 'liberal' as "a politically correct person
with puke for brains."  After reading this arresting description of the much
discussed but seldom defined word, 'liberal', I decided to submit my own
definition of what is often considered the opposite of the 'liberal', which is
of course the "conservative".  After much contemplation, I finally decided that
it would be utterly futile to attempt to encompass all the positive qualities
of the 'conservative' within a single definition but nevertheless I have tried
to come up with a description.  Here it is...

Conservative: a pathetic near sighted person who lacks individuality to such   
    		an extent that they must channel their misdirected lives       
		through another individual, such as Rush Limbaugh, who knows
		how to effectively manipulate these brainless persons.

WHAN@eagle.wesleyan.edu
"Therefore do not send to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."
					J. Donne---
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10292 talk.abortion:52208
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Abortion will never be criminalized. (WAS rights and responsibilities)
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:22:55 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <14DEC199222504365@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu> mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell) writes:
>And here's why.  The anti-choice/anti-abortion/pro-life crowd doesn't 
>really want to end legal abortion.  If they did, two things would happen.  
>First they'd lose their reason for existance as the  
>anti-choice/anti-abortion/pro-life crowd and second, (and most importantly) 
>the revenue stream would dry up.  No cause, no way to raise money to 
>support the cause.  These folks have gone way beyond 'saving babies.' 
>that's only there as window dressing for the faithful.  The real issues now 
>are money and power.  Look at the fund-raising that goes on to support 
>pro-life agendae, look at the power structure that folks like Pat Robertson 
>are building.  You think that's about 'saving babies?'  Well, of course, 
>that's what they want you to think.  It's really about a very profitable 
>theocracy with Pat Robertson or someone very much like him as God's 
>appointed.
>
>+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
>| Elliott Mitchell


Ah, I see our old friend, "I believe in what I believe because I'm
right, those people believe in what they believe because they're
evil..." has reared its ugly head once again...  Just because this is
a Rush Limbaugh newsgroup doesn't mean that you have to stoop to his
level...

-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: <None>
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 02:40:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec2.014205.1@eagle.wesleyan.edu> whan@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>Rush Limbaugh, the way things ought to be is that fat piece excrement should be
>kicked off of television.  I'm so sick off that priviliged candy assed
>butterball  talking about the wat thing should be.  I have three words to
>describe Rush Limbaugh, annoying fat man. nuff' said.

Finally!

An opponent worthy enough for Steve Chaney!  Go to it!

:-)


-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Khat (Summary Wed 12/9/92)
Keywords: Rush Limbaugh Unofficial Summary
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: world,usa,alt,na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:01:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.103543.474@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>This is interesting.  Why would there be no Khat available for the 
>first 48 hours after the Marine landing?  1) I can see the trade being
>disrupted slightly due to "warlords" moving troups/weapons out of
>Mogadishu, but I doubt that would result in no Khat being available.
>2) Given the chaos in Samalia, how would anyone know how much Khat 
>was available?  They may have some antidotal evidence, but not enough
>to claim that there was no Khat available for 48 hours.

Supposedly, the one constant thing during the past two years in 
Somalia, regardless of the fighting and such, was that the daily 
Khat flights from Kenya would land at the Mogadishu airport. The Times
said that the Khat leaves dry up within 48 hours, so the Somalis need
a constant supply of them. When the Marines landed, they took over the
airport, so the Khat smugglers were unable to land until they found 
other facilities.
-- 
John Switzer               | "What we have here is a failure to 
                           | masticate."
Compuserve: 74076,1250     | -- Dr. Clayton "Firebrand" Forrester, after
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | TV's Frank is unable to eat his 13th turkey.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion
From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:58:11 GMT

In article <exuptr.344.724016527@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.053817.26133@rotag.mi.org> kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec7.123900.623@gw.syr.ge.com> cjburke@gw.syr.ge.com writes:
>>>
>>>Sure, just don't ask me to pay for their "dealing"s with tax money.  Let these
>>>people take responsibility themselves, when they start sc**wing around, 
>>>instead of saying that all of society must take responsibility after the
>>>fact.
>
>>You've got it backwards, Chuck. Government-funded abortions don't >cost< 
>>money, they >save< money, in comparison to the welfare costs that would 
>>otherwise be incurred. In opposing government-funded abortions, you're asking 
>>_us_ to subsidize _your_ position...
>
>I think you might be missing the point here.  I would rather pay *more* to 
>raise a child than *less* to kill one.  IMHO, my money, I want to say what 
>it gets spent on.

Okay, fine. We subsidize abortions federally, cut taxes, and you can send 
the money you save in taxes to needy families. Everyone's happy. Deal?

>>Where exactly do you draw the line between "inconvenience" and "necessity"?
>>And why should we be drawing a line at all in the case of a non-viable 
>>fetus which couldn't exist without the mother anyway?
>
>Guess what, a 2-year old is "non-viable".  Take an infant away from its
>mother and they usually end up very disturbed.

Disturbed, perhaps, but still alive. Hence, a 2-year-old is "viable".

Actually, your statement sounds like a good argument for women to abort _if_
they doubt their ability to be there for the child for at least 2 years. No?

								- Kevin
From: popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Rush hates women (?)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 92 23:16:45 GMT
Organization: Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX

schlegel@cwis.unomaha.edu (Mark Schlegel) writes:

> popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell) writes:
> 
> >nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
> 
> >> 
> >> I have been watching the show lately (for the first time),
> >> and I don't get Rush's attitude toward women.  The most
> >> recent example is the orgasm stuff (but I admit I missed the
> >> show, I tape it and the tape ended right after the intro).
> >> Recently Rush made a comment about Clinton going around
> >> and meeting the public in malls--and how people were making
> >> comments like Clinton is "their JFK", etc--and then he
> >> added, "WOMEN are saying that, anyway."
> >> 
> >> Being at odds with a liberal feminist ideology is one
> >> thing, but I sense that Rush is just plain hostile to
> >> ALL women.
> >> 
> >> So, did his mother abandon him as a child, or what? 
> >> 
> 
> 
> >For what it's worth, Rush has been married twice.  Neither marriage 
> >lasted long.  I can see why.
> 
> >"Feminism.  The radical notion that womaen are people too."
> 
>   Probably not the best definition, do you really believe this is what
>   feminism is about?
> 
> >Do you ever get the notion that whenever Rush discusses women or women's 
> >issues, he cant do it without belittlement or mockery?
> 
>   As a social commentator (and entertainer) Rush has to concentrate on the
>   weird and the radical.  In the area of women's issues he usually deals
>   with such odd women's groups as the "Lesbian Avengers" or "Dykes on Bikes",
>   isn't it pretty obvious that he's going to mock something he totally 
>   disagrees with?  The women's issues he finds agreeable don't get on the
>   show for obvious reasons, they aren't entertaining and they don't educate
>   the listeners about liberalism.
>   
>   Mark
>     
> 
> 
> 


(Feminism.... Human)
  Gee, maybe I shoulda put smilies on it so you'd catch on?

Yeh, Ol' Rush always picks on the extremes of feminism.  Cause it is so 
easy.  Not like having to deal with the real problems of real women in a 
world where being a woman is oftimes a distionct an unfair disadvantage.  
Plus it would probably be hard for rush to deal with American Women's 
efforts to deal with this over the last century.  So much easier to yap 
on 'bout Feminazis.  Thus the IMPRESSION that all these feminists are 
yarping, braburning, lesbo manhaters is what you get from Runt and peolpe 
of his ilk.   "Gee, Rush doesn't really hate women."  Yeah, sure.
he doesn't have much empathy for the problems  of women either.  You can 
tell by how he avoids any real useful discussions on women or feminism.


Pope Charles  SubGenius Pope of Houston.

--
popec@unkaphaed.gbdata.com (William C. Barwell)
Unka Phaed's UUCP Thingy, Houston, TX, (713) 943-2728
After December 31, (713) 481-3763
1200/2400/9600/14400 v.32bis/v.42bis
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:9922 talk.politics.misc:63860
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Humphrey/Mondale
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:51:45 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Felix Gorney Mfg 4-6983) writes:
|> : 
|> : In that case, you should withdraw from the discussion.  I watched most of
|> : the convention, and Pat speech was not unique in its tone.  You also must
|> : have forgotten to read the platform, which stresses these social issues
|> : clearly.  You also must have missed the point where the Republican
|> : candidate for President clearly said he supported this platform.
|> :
|> 
|> Sinse Mike is an expert on the Republican platform of 1992, I would like to
|> know the specific wording thereof, that was found to be so apalling, and
|> heinous.                                       

Sorry, since the election is over, I deleted my copy of the platform and threw
away my copy of Bush's economic plan (I even called it that with a straight face).

|> 
|> : |> Most republicans want to end government subsidizing of a clearly 
|> : |> controversial issue. I doubt abortion will ever ber eliminated. 
|> : |> 
|> : |> Rush has even stated this. He says that the battle should be focused     
|> : |> on peoples hearts, and not on laws. This therefore is the job of 
|> : |> churches, and not government. However, if you agree that someone should
|> : |> make an informed judgement, I agree that a person should hear all sides. 
|> : 
|> : One persons controversial issue is anothers natural right.  I think we
|> : should remove the tax exempt status of all churches.  Not being a member,
|> : I resent paying for their guady edifices to greed and waste.
|> :
|> 
|> 
|> What about seperation of church, and state? Do you remember the constitution?
|> If one cannot say a prayer in a public building, then how does the govt. have
|> a right to intrude into the affairs of these churches. I would also like to 
|> know, in what way one ends up paying to support churches, when one isn't a 
|> member. I didn't know they were subsidized by govt..
|> 
A church uses and is supported by the local infrastructure (roads, police, fire,
etc.) which everyone pays for through property taxes and income taxes.  The
church takes in money and uses those services and does not pay its share.  So
I am carrying a share of their support, and I am not a member.

I would have thought this was obvious.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh