HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lsa@ll.mit.edu (lisa s anderson)
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Reply-To: lsa@ll.mit.edu (lisa s anderson)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 16:42:45 GMT

In article <grendel.722041805@camelot>, 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?  How many people 
are starving in all of the non-capitalistic societies throughout the 
world?  Name one country in which there are no poor people.  I see that 
the communnist (socialist, actually) pipe dream of "let's dole out 
everything equally to all for the good of society" was very successful 
in the "former" Soviet Union.  Their productivity soared and all of the 
people were well-fed and just as happy as clams, right?  It's only in the 
evil capitalist countries, led of course by the evil personified United 
States of America, that the existence of poor people is accepted as a fact
of life.  Sarcasm aside, I find it hard to believe that anyone could be 
naive enough to really believe the statement that you made.


-lisa

 
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu (Michael L. Le Houllier)
Subject: Re: THE LIMBAUGH DIR/ALLAMERICAN RE
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 03:21:39 GMT

In article <ytjq7pb@lynx.unm.edu> hagerjd@carina.unm.edu (John D. Hager) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.113315.3996@wkuvx1.bitnet> hargijk@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.135413.2195@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, jbuckner@lonestar.utsa.edu (James A. Buckner) writes:
>>> In article <1992Nov15.220206.1@woods.ulowell.edu> enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>--------Long list of things to do excluded.
>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>RADIO STATIONS
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>Station Name	Frequency	CITY 			STATE
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>WHDH		0850 AM		Boston 			MA
>>>  KTSA           0550 AM         San Antonio             TX
>>  WLAC          1510 AM    	Nashville		TN
>>  W???  	0610 AM		Bowling Green		KY
>>  W???		96.3 FMBuzzard  Bowling Green 		KY
>KKOB            0770 AM         ALBUQUERQUE             NM
  WTSN           1270 AM       Dover                    NH/ME
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>TELEVISION STATIONS
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>Station Name    Frequency       CITY                    STATE
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>WFXT 		25 UHF		Boston                  MA
>>>  KMOL           04 VHF          San Antionio            TX (1:05 & 5:30 AM)
>>  WTVF		05 VHF		Nashville		TN (11:30p)
>>  WBKO 		13 VHF		Bowling Green		KY (11:00p)
>   KOAT             07 VHF        ALBUQUERQUE             NM (12:05AM)
    WMUR             08 VHF          Portland            ME/NH (noon)
>>>>
>>>>Lets start the Revolution!!!!!!!!
>>>>
>>AMEN!
>>
>>>>Robert R. Eno
>>>>A Conservative Voice in the Peoples Democratic Republic of Massachusetts
>>>>
>>>>The views are mine not those of UMASS Lowell
>>> 
>>> 
>
>


-- 
 Michael Le Houllier           *  John 3:16  * Nov 12, 1991 - Dili      
 (m_lehoul@oz.plymouth.edu.us) *  Remember: June 4, 1989 - Beijing
 Plymouth State Women's Soccer - #2 in the nation (Div. 3)  (15-1-2)
 Great job this season girls.  Get U MASS Dartmouth back next year!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch Day 15
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:13:47 GMT

In article <LARRY.92Nov21181531@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>>>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:14:57 GMT, jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) said:
>
>John> November 17, 1992
>John> Dateline - Santa Barbara, CA
>
>John> It's now 15 days after Bill Clinton's election and Rush is still on the 
>John> air with 532 radio affiliates and 207 TV affiliates.
>John> -- 
>
>And Limbaugh remains a jerk.

Ah, what witty repartee! What shrewd insisiveness! What cutting satire! What
a bold and engaging statement on the issues! The hallmark of a Clinton 
supporter, to be sure!
-- 
John Switzer               | "Lobbyists are circling Clinton like slugs
                           | around a saucer of beer."
CompuServe: 74076,1250     | -- Alexander Cockburn, LA Times 11/15/92
Internet: jrs@netcom.com   | (P.S. Impeach Clinton, support the coup!)
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8873 alt.rush-limbaugh:10047
From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch - Day 17
Date: 20 Nov 92 03:20:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

session@seq.uncwil.edu (Zack C. Sessions) writes:
%jrs@netcom.com (John Switzer) writes:
%
%>It's now 17 days after Bill Clinton's election and Rush is still on the 
%>air with 536 radio affiliates and 207 TV affiliates, and his book is 
%>number one on the NY Times hardback non-fiction best-seller lists.
%
%Huh? So what? What has this got to do with the price of eggs in China?

That means that the price of eggs will be CHEEP!!!
[Sorry about the yolk. Guess I got egg on my face for that one.]

[Just smile. It's good for you.]

-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck	eyc@acpub.duke.edu	Biomedical Engineering 1993
	THANK GOD IT'S BASKETBALL SEASON!!!!!
I don't have to have a 4.0 GPA to succeed in life because I'm 
good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me.
From: kamilewi@mari.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz)
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:00:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.212415.16449@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> howiegbk@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jr Howard Mea Turner) writes:
>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.

Yea, he didn't wet his pants.

>  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?
>

OK, Dan Quayle may have more foreign affairs experience than Al Gore, but
that will change as soon as Al Gore takes one trip overseas.  You gave ONE
example of Quayle being in charge in a foreign policy situation.  Fact is,
that situation was already predetermined by the President's advisers and
all Dan had to do was OK what George had said.  This is not an example of
Danny using his supreme intellect to bear on foreign policy questions, this
is an example of him following orders.

Alex

-->Conservatism is for those who fail to understand reality<--
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: kamilewi@lars.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz)
Subject: Re:  New details on our first lady!
Organization: St. Olaf College; Northfield, MN
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:12:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.183910.18659@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> htuttle@nyx.cs.du.edu (Harry Tuttle) writes:
>
>
>In a previous article, Larry Henson writes:
>
>[wonderfully witty and politically savvy material deleted]
>
>Gee, Larry.  It took three of you to write that?  Wow.
>And you are only in high school?  Wow again.
>
>Well, I guess even 16-year olds can have a complete lack of 
>comprehension and understanding of the issues.
>
>Hey, I hate him, but at least Rush is funny. I can't believe that
>you would waste all of that time and disk space to write something
>that trite and ridiculous.
>
>Kid, it wasn't political satire.  It was drivel.
>
>Oh well, what can you expect from a high schooler?                  
> 
>Go back to the mall.
>
>"We're all in this together."
>Harry Tuttle
>                   

Well, that accomplished a lot.  I think you really made a constructive
criticism on them.  Really convinced me.

Ever thought of using intelligence in your arguments?  Stop writing just
to inflate your ego, will you?

Alex


Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8730 alt.rush-limbaugh:9889 alt.politics.clinton:17364
From: tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Rush lets something slip ...
Date: 17 Nov 92 19:55:40 GMT
Distribution: world, na
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

Today, Rush was talking about Bo Snerdly's heritage, coming from the "African
Egyptian" culture.  As he was talking, he mentioned something about the
writing not surviving on "papayas".   A minute or two later he (or one of
his staff) caught himself and he corrected himself to "papayrus".  He then
started reminisicing about papaya, and the prevalence of papaya juice shops
on 8'th avenue, and how one young woman had told him that she would only
indulge in sex if she had papaya juice, becuase otherwise her blood would be
too acidic (or something like that).

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?
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8784 alt.president.clinton:518
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu)
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 18 Nov 92 15:39:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.005341.10275@EE.Stanford.EDU> budd@playfair.Stanford.EDU (David Budd) writes:
>In article <92Nov17.153106est.56@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.212415.16449@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> howiegbk@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Jr Howard Mea Turner) writes:
>>>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?
>>>
>>
>>Gee, I wonder why Prez. Bush didn't sent "expert" Quayle to 
>>Alexander Dubueck[sp?]'s funeral last week -- ya know, "the man
>>who crushed Prague Spring in 1968" -- when Mr. Quayle is about
>>to become a reporter for the Indiana National Guard.  
>
>
>I believe that the Czechs use the cyrillic alphabet, so that there
>could be more than one way to speel the name. But the
>accepted and customary way to spell it is "Dubcek."
>
>That aside, Dubcek was not the man who crushed the Prague Spring
>in 1968. Rather, it was he who, through his policy of creating
>"Communism with a human face," brought bout the "Prague
>Spring." 
>
I know.  

>It was the soviets, and their premier Leonid Brezhnev, the "evil empire"
>which the republicans rightfully battled; the same soviet union that
>bill clinton visited one year later, who cruelly crushed the
>movement.
>
I see my post lacked happy faces in there ;->, everyone know who Alexander
Dubeck is, that is, almost all, except Dan Quayle who made the above
totally insane mistake once, calling Dubeck "the man who crushed Prague
Spring", which became one of his infamous quotes, and really really
demostrated his expertise in Foreign affairs.  

Get yourself a list of Quayle quotes, you'd love it.  
>
>
>--
>David Leung-tak
>"You can always tell a Harvard man. You just can't tell him very much."
>"A day without sun is night."
From: barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:15:14 CST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <1992Nov17.160934.21158@news.stolaf.edu>, kamilewi@mari.acc-admin.stolaf.edu (Alex Kamilewicz) writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.190611.1@woods.ulowell.edu> enor@woods.ulowell.edu writes:
>>>In article <Bxtovu.7Ap@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, 
>>>tz10956@meibm12.cen.uiuc.edu (Thomas Zych) writes:
>>>> sjthomas@cup.portal.com (Stephen J Thomas) writes:
                                                                   
>>>>Rush Limbaugh's 35 Truths                                          
                                                                   
>>>>21. Abortion is wrong.                                             
 
>>> But forcing women who cannot or do not wish to support children to have them,
>>> in effect enslaving them, is perfectly alright.

>>	Biology 101, Sex is first and foremost for the procreation of LIFE. 
>>The old saying goes  here "If you don't want to get burned, don't play with
>>fire."  It was a woman's choice to have sex or not(except cases of rape or
>>incest) therefore she already executed her right to choose.  If a human being
>>in the womb were just another body part abortion should be legal.(i.e. if you
>>want your livver out take it out)  but human life is just that human life.)
 
> What if she was already trying to avoid getting pregnant, i.e. like using
> birth control, and it happened anyway?

Sex is for procreation, as he said.  Any time you do it, you run the
risk - with or without birth control.  You accept the risk by engaging
in it - with or without birth control.  You know what you're getting
into.
   
> -->Conservatism is for those who fail to understand reality<--

And liberalism is for those who fail to accept it.  :+)
From: acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil (Arthur C. Adams)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Rush Limbaugh:  Will He Attack Anything Clinton Does?
Keywords: Clinton, Limbaugh, Ethics
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:12:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Great Beyond

I think Rush Limbaugh has finally demonstrated that he will
never do anything but condemn anything Bill Clinton does.

Last Friday, DimBulb attacked, of all things, Bill Clinton's
ethics rules for his transition team. Great. Clinton wants to
set very strict standards for his Presidency, to avoid the type
pf scandals athat occurred repeatedly during the Reagan - Bush 
years, and Rush doesn't like it. 

In desperation, all he can come up with is that Clinton has
said he won't accept people from the automobile industry,
out of conflict of interest fears. That's all he can come
up with? That's it! The man is so desperate to attack 
Clinton he attacks him for being TOO SELECTIVE about 
his staff. 

Of course, DimBulb has two possible motives. First is that
he actually wants Clinton to have low ethical standards, so he
can gloat over scandals. Second, and far more likely, is that 
he will stop at nothing to tear down the incoming President.

I can just see it now: if Bill Clinton announced he could raise
the dead, DimBulb would attack him for harming the undertaking
industry...
-- 
We need not fear those who do evil in the name of evil, but Heaven
protect us from those who do evil in the name of good.
Arthur C. Adams acadams@afterlife.ncsc.mil            	<fnord>
No, I'm not the Arthur Adams who draws comic books. Don't even ask.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu (Don Wiggins)
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch - Day 17
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:10:16 GMT

pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs) writes:

 [multiple lines of insults deleted]

>Rush is a great entertainer who has found a great market to make a 
>few bucks.

 [multiple lines of insults deleted]

Whew!  I knew if I slogged through this stuff long enough I'd find a
valid point, and there it is.  Of _course_ Rush is an entertainer!
What I don't understand is why people are so afraid of him.  They
wouldn't think of viciously attacking Mark Russell or Arsenio Hall for
raking Bush and Quayle over the coals, but they suddenly become very
threatened when Rush Limbaugh does the same thing to Billary.  And by the
way, you didn't really say that the left doesn't have an equivalent to
Rush Limbaugh, did you?

 ===========================================================================|
 |                                      | Success is getting what you want. |
 |Don Wiggins                           | Happiness is wanting what you get.|
 |Internet: wiggins@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu |     -- Brother Dave Gardner       |
 ===========================================================================|
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8670 alt.president.clinton:465
From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:35:47 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments

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:
|> 
|> >    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. 
|> 
|> No, as a matter of fact, he didn't.  After he finished talking to whomever
|> that was in the crowd, he got up and went over to the other side of the
|> stage.  GORE DID NOT FALL INTO THE CROWD.
|> 
|> 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.

Big (Spender) Al will make a suitable VP.  He is funny enough without the
usual press distortion of the VP.  Standup comics will likely get him anyway,
after all ~60% of voters voted against him, which makes him an even bigger
target than Quayle was.

dp

***  The opinions are mine (maybe) and do not necessarily represent those  ***
***  of my employer.                                                       ***
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Gay Marriages?
Keywords: marriage, 14th Amendment, gays, lesbians
Organization: New Mexico State University
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:37:14 GMT

In article <19377@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> watnik@fisher.ucdavis.edu
(Mitchell Watnik) writes: 
>
>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).
       (stuff deleted)
How about the fact that you can't marry more than one person at the
same time.  Here is the state putting forth a restriction on a
(potentally) mutually consented marriage.  The logic could go, if they
can stop one, why not the other.  Being libertarian minded myself, I
personally don't think they should stop either. But that seems to be a
consistent argument for outlawing homosexual marriage...
-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    *
**********************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8777 alt.rush-limbaugh:9938
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:31:02 GMT

In article <LARRY.92Nov22102113@peak.psl.nmsu.edu> larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way) writes:
>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:02:36 GMT, dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David
Steinberg) said: 

>
>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. 


Yes but what if I don't WANT to be a dittohead.  I think both
statements are equally dumb.  If you say conser.=bad lib=good or
lib=bad conser=good then you just are forcing your opinions upon other
people's ideas.  So how again did your post refute mine, or were your
just looking for a gratutious insult?
-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