HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Subject: Re: Rush lets something slip ...
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin
Distribution: world, na
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:14:53 GMT

In article <nate.828@psygate.psych.indiana.edu> nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>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 Rush is human after all, eh? I don't consider Rush's "Epitomy 
>of Morality and Virtue" as anything other than part of the act, but I'm 
>sure that this will be food for thought for a few dittoheads out there.

Hmmm, last Fall sometime Rush went through this big deal about how he
wasn't celibate but he wasn't in danger of contacting AIDS.  It went on
for most of the show and seemed to me that what he was talking about
was sex without pentration.  You're right though, it doesn't really
jive with the "Epitomy of Morality and Virtue" bit.

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
From: leffel@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Christopher J Leffel)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: thEwIndBag bashes Rev. Jackson, again
Date: 19 Nov 1992 18:56:30 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Reply-To: leffel@csd4.csd.uwm.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: leffel@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

From article <19NOV199211484948@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>, by mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell):

[Rush Bashing Deleted]

I have no problem that you disagree with Rush...  but I would like to draw
your attention to the fact that this newsgroup is called 

alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
    ^^^

The posting of such material to this group is just flame-bating...  Please
direct any further thoughts such as these to alt.rush-limbaugh.
-- 
-------------------------leffel@csd4.csd.uwm.edu--------------------------
"Don't you try to outweird me, I get stranger things than you free with my
breakfast cereal."    -The Restaurant at the End of the Universe-

Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: be231642@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Bret Egan)
Subject: Why Rush is a Jack Ass
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:47:17 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

First of all he is farther right than Adolf Hitler.

Assuming television and the media are liberal institutions, why would he be
caught dead surrounded by liberalism?

His audiance consists of old people who up till two weeks ago still had a voice
in our government.  The same people who thought that the debt accumulated over
the last twelve years was functional for our country, are gloating right now
about the lower taxes they paid during Reagan/Bush.  

Rush denies that their is anything wrong with OUR environment.  That is not only
being ultra conservative, but also being ignorent.  Why should Rush care about
the quality of his drinking water or the air he breathes (living in NYC)?
That argument holds true for our corporate execs.  They (their company) can pollute almost
without any interference from the EPA, but when the environment goes to hell they
can jet off to some foreign country to breath.  Al Gore will stop this "Look the
other way" EPA enforcement of Pollution laws.
The hole in the ozone EXISTS!  

Rush should know (or maybe he doesn't) that as a country WE elect our president,
not Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals.  We stood behind
Reagan/Bush as trickle down increased our Debt.  We should now stand behind Bill
Clinton as he approaches the office that we elected him to.  Meanwhile Rush can
continue his attacks on our President for the next four years.  

Rush and all the other conservatives are scared to death that the baby-boomers
are slowly entering our government.  Twenty five years ago our government tried
to oppress the "Counter Culture" by ending their rallies and demonstrations.  Now
we elected two men who were taking part in those very same events.  To scare you
some more, our president and veep also listen to the Grateful Dead.  Isn't
America great?

Bret
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Date: 17 Nov 92 21:52:08 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <1992Nov17.204031.26258@dsd.es.com> sbender@navajo.dsd.es.com (Steve Bender) writes:
>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.
>
>Review the text and you will also find that the speech did not
>attack single parents.
>

	Oh?  And just who was he attacking? His tone certainly sounded
as if he was meaning to point a wagging finger at someone.
	It is funny to me that conservatives will point fingers at
fictional characters, instead of admitting what really killed their
idea of the "traditional family". What killed the 50's style family
was the increased amount of choice that has been given to women in
areas ranging from careers, to family choices, to reproductive
choices. 
	When women (I should say white, middle-class women, because
poor and black women have almost always worked) left the kitchen for
the work force the family was never going to be the same. And the 50's
attempt to force women who had tasted independence back into the
kitchen didn't work.  Nowaday's a woman doesn't HAVE to depend on a
man for anything - food, shelter, even to have children (thanks to the
advent of sperm banks).  So what incentive does the traditional family
offer? And how can we entice women back into this fold?
	Well, you can try taking away the choices that have made it
easier for women to establish independence and make their own choices
about their lives.  You can try, but you're on your own.  And most
conservatives won't want to try it anyway. So what's to do?




-- 
"Black men loving black men is THE revolutionary act!"
			-Joseph Beam_
Terrance Heath 
heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8641 alt.politics.bush:13902
From: johnch@smaug.West.Sun.COM (John Chandler)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:18:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Impossible Missions force
NNTP-Posting-Host: pongo

In article <1992Nov11.002649.12610@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.162812.1@acad.drake.edu> vsg001@acad.drake.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.190227.25938@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>> 
>>> 	Look, buster, this is America, and Clinton's our new president.


[ apt parody of Love-it-or-leave-it ultrapatriot drivel deleted]

>>
>>Uh, no, YOU listen here. First of all, Clinton IS NOT the president yet, so why
>>don't you cool off on this 'respect' bullshit that you preach. I seriously doubt
>>that you showed ANY respect for President Bush. Secondly, John has the right to
>>voice whatever opinions he wants because, as you have so ingeniously pointed
>>out, this is America. Remember? Liberals and free speech? It's funny how when a
>>Republican is president, contempt and disrespect is fashionable. But now that
>>the Dems are "up to bat" they want a little respect. Well, practice what you
>>preach bud.
>

After whatever it took to get your attention (2x4? the word, "ACHTUNG?"), I 
would TRY to advise you to wipe your mouth, the foam is unattractive.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8878 alt.rush-limbaugh:10055
From: pvanmeur@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (Pim van Meurs)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Limbaugh Watch - Day 17
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:24:50 GMT
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <1992Nov19.173738.1394@netcom.com> 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.
 
>John Switzer               | "Lobbyists are circling Clinton like slugs

Similarly it's 17 days after Rush was proven wrong about his
prediction of the outcome of the election. For someone who claims to
be right 99% of the time, he surely messed up pretty badly here. His
only way out seemed to have been claiming victory for
'conservatism', unwilling to accept what is obvious to everyone else
but him and some of his blind followers. The elections mark the end
of an era in which little or no attnetion was paid to the american
people who needed help most. Resulting in Job loss, millions of people 
uninsured, bigotry increasing, religuous influence on public policy
increasing. We have entered an era of change, an era in which
everyone will be given the oportunities to obtain at least the
minimum baiscs, food, healthcare, housing, respect.
But I am digressing. Rush is a great entertainer who has found a
great market to make a few bucks. This market will not decrease
after the elections, since many conservatives will need a shelter to
recover from their losses. He is to be admired for his abilities to
build up many followers who are willing to spend lots of money on
their hero. After the failure of ripping of money from the religuous
by so called Chosen ones, Rush has found the next best oportunity,
pretend to be a conservative host who claims to be right almost
always. Controversial material alwasy sells, like Madonna's book for
instance. I admire Rush for his ability to mislead so many people
into believing he is something more than just an entertainer who is
often more wrong than right but says what people want to hear or
believe.
Sure, Rush will be around as long as people need to be told what to
believe. Guess that's why there is no liberal equivalent of Rush.

Pim van Meurs


-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: don@ocf.berkeley.edu (Don Bromley)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Not in a Rush to see Rush anymore
Followup-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: 22 Nov 1992 04:50:20 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: avalanche.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Nov22.032626.10475@math.ucla.edu> pugh@pico.math.ucla.edu (David Pugh) writes:
>Well, I used to be a fan of Rush but now that Clinton has won
>and Rush has started this TV show, I can only say the following:
>
> Rush is BORING, PATHETIC and REDUNDANT.

  That's why he has the #1 radio show, top 5 syndicated TV show, and a
  best-selling book?  I'd like to be that boring.

>
>He won't last ya know.

  How many years has he been in the radio business now?  I think 
  people said that about him in '88, they were wrong too...

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

  Ahah... a UCLA student... that explains everything.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8766 alt.rush-limbaugh:9928
From: grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea)
Subject: Re: Democratic Whiners Can't Take It
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Nov 92 00:50:58 GMT

In <1992Nov20.230532.24506@rchland.ibm.com> jdahl@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:

>In article <1992Nov17.162705.24794@galileo.physics.arizona.edu>, krueger@galileo.physics.arizona.edu (Ted Krueger) writes: 
>|> 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!!!

>As you conservative, apple pie, gun-toting folks like to say:

>"America.  Love it or Leave it!"

Now, you know those conservative fellas will never respect you if you bring
yourself down to their level.
From: jcorwin@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (James C Spencer)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Here Are The Undeniable Truths of Life
Date: 18 Nov 1992 12:21:01 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

grendel@camelot.bradley.edu (Alyosha Bourgea) writes:



>>22. Morality is not defined by individual choice.                  

>"To those who say I can't impose my morality on others, I say, just watch me."
>Rush Limbaugh knows what's best for me?  I think not.

>Morality is relative, as is everything else.


Your statement is an absolute statement, thus it contradicts itself.

--Jim Spencer
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: mitcheec@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (Elliott Mitchell)
Subject: thEwIndBag bashes Rev. Jackson, again...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Vanderbilt University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:42:00 GMT

I only allow myself a little snippet of thEwIndBag's show each day, after 
all, I have a heart condition.

Today he allowed as how he'd heard somewhere that Rev. Jackson was calling 
for demonstrations in the spring if Governor Clinton doesn't live up to 
Rev. Jackson's expectations.  I have access to the AP newswire and so I 
looked for myself.  I didn't find this statement (that doesn't mean he 
didn't make it, however).  I did find reference to Jackson's viewing the 
film "Malcolm X." which thEwIndBag hinted that Rev. Jackson had skipped on 
purpose.  Here follows the text of the update I sent to thEwIndBag on his 
Compu$erve account:

>>Here is what I could find on the wire with respect to any news about Rev. 
Jesse Jackson in Birmingham.  I couldn't find any reference to marching in 
the streets if Clinton fails.  As you can see, it's just the copy 
associated with the television news clip fed over NewsOne.  But you could 
send someone from the EIB building to the ABC building for whatever wire 
copy they have on the story (wink wink, nudge nudge)

ABC NEWSONE SOUTHEAST/BIRMINGHAM                                  
WED NOV 18, 1992                                                  
C/BIRMINGHAM                                                      
STATUS:EDITED                                                     

SUPERS:1.BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA                                      
2.REV. JESSE JACKSON                                              

NOTES:THE REVEREND JESSE JACKSON WAS THE GUEST OF HONOR LAST
NIGHT AT THE WEEK LONG OPENING OF THE BIRMINGHAM CIVIL RIGHTS
INSTITUTE. JACKSON ALSO GOT A SNEAK PREVIEW OF THE NEW SPIKE LEE
MOVIE BASED ON THE LIFE OF MALCOLM X.              

JACKSON APPEARED DEEPLY TOUCHED AS HE AND HIS SON WATCHED THE
THREE HOUR FILM AT THE BAMA-6 THEATER IN CENTER POINT.MALCOLM X
WAS THE MUSLIM CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVIST ASSASSINATED IN 1965.  
<<

me again.  Please notice that I am playing along with thEwIndBag's fantasy 
that he is "broadcasting from high atop the EIB building."  He isn't, he 
rents studio space from WABC but don't tell the limbots, OK?


+ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
| 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,alt.politics.clinton
From: d
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:51:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.054513.1@deep-13.gizmo.com>, maxwell@deep-13.gizmo.com writes:
|> In article <BxoBI8.39r@news.iastate.edu>, barrett@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
|> 
|> [...]
|> 
|> >    All of this leads me to the solid conclusion that conservatives
|> > are the real guarantors of First Amendment Rights in the U.S.  Liberals
|> > support other people's First Amendment rights only when the speach 
|> > agrees with them.  Liberals have concocted a large number of terms 
|> > like "political correctness" in attempt to stifle the First Amendment
|> > rights of people with opposing viewpoints.  Political incorrectness
|> > **IS** fully protected by the First Amendment, but liberals refuse to
|> > accept this.  Conservatives, however, always respect the First Amendment
|> > rights of everybody, regardless of opposing viewpoints.
|> 
|> Are you a freshman or just stupid?

It's so good to see you supporting Marc's right to free speech and defending
it to your last breath. . .
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:8775 alt.rush-limbaugh:9937 alt.politics.clinton:17399
From: larry@peak.psl.nmsu.edu (Evil Engineer doin' it the Cowboy Way)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Liberals DO oppose First Amendment rights
Date: 18 Nov 92 08:33:06 GMT
	<1e6b57INNgqb@spool.mu.edu> <Bxs9yn.9sI@ns1.nodak.edu>
Organization: New Mexico State University, MetaPhysical Science Laboratory

In article <Bxs9yn.9sI@ns1.nodak.edu> green@plains.NoDak.edu (Brad Green) writes:
   In article <1e6b57INNgqb@spool.mu.edu> marcr@studsys.mscs.mu.edu (Marc Rassbach) writes:
   >She can't be very bright then.  Rush says there are only 13 (or so)
   >Feminazis around, you'd think Camille could have someone stop any (or
   >all) of the 13 at the door.  Or even schedual around whereever the 13
   >are going to be.

   I disagree with Rush on this, there may only be 13 Feminazi leaders around
   there, but there's an awful lot of fellow travelers that don't seem to be
   able to make rational decisions on their own. It's kind of like some of the
   posters around here, they just parrot what they here, and don't really think
   it through.

We do seem to have this shortage of Right Thinkin' Americans, don't we?

Strange though. I thought this naggin fear that folks couldn't manage 
their own thinking processes was supposed to be the exclusive domain 
of the Evil Liberals.

So. Again. Why are we so fearful of a handful of extremos?

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..
It's time to find out what's in the other half of Rush Limbaugh's brain.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton
From: mvp@netcom.com (Mike Van Pelt)
Subject: Re: Al Gore -VP Curse strkes again?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 08:00:42 GMT

In article <1e0vn9INNq5t@transfer.stratus.com> dennist@sw.stratus.com (Dennis Tetreault) writes:
>   After 4 years of listening to everyone trash Dan Quayle, everyone seemed
>to think that we would have a new VP with stature, ability, and stateliness.
>Al Gore.
>   Something happened though.  [Algor falls off stage into crowd;
Algor gets lost in the woods.]

Jay Leno mentioned the same thing just the other night.  He
wondered just what it was about the vice presidency that
causes anyone who wins it to drop 15 points off their IQ.

-- 
Mike Van Pelt          | It was a typical net.exercise -- a screaming
mvp@netcom.com         | mob pounding on a greasy spot on the pavement,
mvp@hsv3.lsil.com      | where used to lie the carcass of a dead horse.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: enor@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: Just a thought on Condoms.
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:01:37 GMT

Just a thought.

If condoms fail approx. 25% of the time when used in the prevention of 
pregnancy, and
due to the biological functions of a woman's body she can only get pregnant for
a short period of time during any particular month.  What is the TRUE failure
rate for condoms.  

If this failure rate is so great how come AIDS advocacy groups seem to be
saying that if condoms are used it will prevent the SPREAD(notice not
transmission) of HIV.  

If the TRUE failure rate of condoms could be proven to be in the approx. 50%
range wouldn't the SAFETY be taken out of "safeR sex".  And if this is so
aren't AIDS advocacy groups possibly increasing the likelyhood of transmission
by giving people a false sense of security.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert R. Eno A Conservative Voice in Massachusetts

The views here are my own and do not neccesarily reflect the views of the
University of Massachusetts at Lowell.

-----------------------------------
|* * * * * *|||||||||||||||||||||||
| * * * * * |                     |    "God Bless the USA
|* * * * * *|||||||||||||||||||||||      Where the flag still
| * * * * * |                     |       Stands for Freedom
|* * * * * *|||||||||||||||||||||||        And they can't take that
| * * * * * |                     |              AWAY!!!!"
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||                ---Lee Greenwood
|                                 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|                                 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|                                 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||         
     
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh